[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Is it really a non issue? |
> > > I noticed that my bug report was silently moved to 'not a bug' > section. Despite report's subject 'Not a bug, but...' i do think its > atleast an issue. Consider this: > > file a.ml: > let a = 1 > > file a.mli: > val a : int \ > val a : int | > ........... | n times > val a : int | > val a : int / > > > After compilation/linking we will get huge .cmi and binary with data > section (n-1)*4(on 32bit architectures) bytes bigger that it should have > been. Current ocamlopt.opt is 12 bytes bigger due to redundant declartions > in bytecomp/lambda.mli(is_guarded,patch_guarded) and > utils/clflags.ml(dump_scheduling), not a big deal but still anoying. This is probably an issue, but I do not think it is related to the previous post on records. At least, we should get those nasty 12 bytes back ! Thank you for your issue report (:->) --Luc PS> I guess I can understand Xavier, sometimes some people complain about so-called bugs which are in facts features, and for features such as the ``cannot use record labels as I would have wished to'' it is just too often. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr