Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Is it really a non issue?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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
> 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/, 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 (:->)


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:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: