| Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 2013-05-21 03:31 CEST | ![]() |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap |
| View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||
| 0000141 | OCaml | OCaml general | public | 2000-06-14 23:28 | 2000-06-19 17:05 | |||
| Reporter | administrator | |||||||
| Assigned To | ||||||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always | |||
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | |||||
| Platform | OS | OS Version | ||||||
| Product Version | ||||||||
| Target Version | Fixed in Version | |||||||
| Summary | 0000141: Re: ocaml for cray? | |||||||
| Description | Hi, Thank you for your message to the Caml mailing list. However your message seems to be a bug report; hence I send it to the relevant mailing list caml-bugs@inria.fr Thank again for your interest in Caml. PS: My machine is an alpha station, it is thus a 64 bits processor and sure Caml Light and Objective Caml is running on it for years now ... Pierre Weis INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/ [^] > There is an interesting bit of o'caml software called unison. > So I tried to compile ocaml on our J90. After some messing > around (configure only knows about ymp) I got to a message > that said "shorts are 8 bytes, ints are 8 bytes, I give up". > > Any chance of ocaml on 64 bit machines? > > Bob | |||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||
| Attached Files | ||||||||
Notes |
|
|
(0002125) administrator (administrator) 2000-06-15 15:55 |
> There is an interesting bit of o'caml software called unison. > So I tried to compile ocaml on our J90. After some messing > around (configure only knows about ymp) I got to a message > that said "shorts are 8 bytes, ints are 8 bytes, I give up". > Any chance of ocaml on 64 bit machines? OCaml works fine on 64-bit processors: Alpha/Tru64 Unix, Alpha/Linux, Cray T3E in particular. However, it needs the C compiler to provide at least one integer type that is exactly 32 bit wide. The configuration tries to find one such type among {short, int, long}, and so far this worked on all architectures that we've encountered. If it is really the case that the C compiler of the J90 takes sizeof(short) = sizeof(int) = 8, then you could either 1) look for compiler options that select more reasonable sizes, or 2) see if the compiler provides other integer types that would be 32-bit wide (e.g. int32, int32_t, whatever). In case 2), please write back with details and we'll try to tell you what to patch in the sources. Regards, - Xavier Leroy |
|
(0002126) administrator (administrator) 2000-06-19 15:12 |
> I've looked hard in man pages and C ref manual and I'm pretty sure > there is no way to define a 32 bit int. Does the system have an include file called intttypes.h or stdint.h? In ISO C9X, these header files define a bunch of types for fixed-size integers, e.g. int32_t and uint32_t for 32-bit integers. (Few Unix systems provide these includes, though, because C9X is still a draft.) > So I guess it is a case of defining the quantity as > struct { unsigned uint32:32 } > and then always referencing the value as whatever.uint32. Does > that sound like it will work? I'm afraid it won't, because the compiler will pad the structure to the size of an int (8 bytes), and you won't get the intended behavior for arrays of int32... Regards, - Xavier Leroy |
|
(0002127) administrator (administrator) 2000-06-19 17:05 |
Weird architecture: no 32-bit integer type! |
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2005-11-18 10:13 | administrator | New Issue | |
| Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group |