On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:35, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:19:25AM +0000, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > There isn't really anything more that I can add. We wrote the OCaml the
> > obvious way (no unsafe code) and used the conventional bindings (LablGL)
> > and distributed the binary, only to find that too many people had
> > reliability problems for it to be a viable product so we pulled it.
>
> It does sound like the bindings or GL implementations are to blame.

GL works on these computers from programs not written in OCaml.

> virt-top is used by an indeterminate number of people, as a binary,
> and I've not had any reports like this.  It does plenty of floating
> point, it's native code, and compiled in the usual way.

Do you have statistics for any OpenGL-based OCaml programs?

> > My guess is that the glut libraries installed on these computers are
> > causing the problems. Perhaps we should write bindings to GLX or use
> > LablGTK2 to evade glut and see what happens but, of course, we cannot
> > reproduce the problem here and there are a huge number of variations we
> > could try without having any real idea of what is going wrong.
>
> Do you remember if the crashes happened at predictable places (for
> your customers) or were they random each time the program ran?

Random.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e