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
[Caml-list] "No bytecode specified"
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-09-03 (16:25)
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "No bytecode specified"

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Xavier Leroy wrote:

> > OK, no answers, that has helped,
> > so I now come with more details:
> At last, some technical data in a message of yours.  You're (slowly)
> improving.  If you could just have posted this to
> rather than caml-list, this would have been perfect :-)
> The cause of the problem is here:
> > readlink("/proc/self/exe", "[0303]:2916", 1024) = 11

Yes, I thought, that this was a problem.
Looks very uncommon.

> I.e. /proc/self/exe does not point to the executable name, but to an
> inode number.  That must be a truly ancient Linux kernel that you're
> running.  (Pre 2.0 ?)  

Yes, 2.0.18 on this old machine.
Updating? Hmhhh this old machine itself may be updated by a newer
one (faster hardware). ;-)

> I'll harden the determination of the program name against this
> problem.

I once had used ocamlmktop, and I don' know if it was on my
new computer or on this old machine.
I think it was the old one, where it once worked, but
I think it was Ocaml 3.01, that worked.
Maybe in Ocaml 3.04 there were some changes...

Somewhere in the strace-output I found "ptrace".
I don't know a "ptrace" on linux-machines, but if
I remember correctly, there is a ptrace on Solaris-

Maybe it's only a problem of the  configure-script,
which thinks to use tools, not available on common

>  In the meantime, do yourself a favor and upgrade to a more
> recent Linux kernel (and distribution?).

Well, maybe this is a good idea.
I may try it with a debian.

But I'm not shure if new linux-distributions will work
well on this old machine. It works. Not very fast,
but still good enough for a lot of tasks.
So, when updating the software means to have necessity
of buying new hardware this is not, what I want...
(not enough money this times, hope it will change soon).

But I may try the new debian. :)


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: