Browse thread
OCaml version 3.11.0+beta1
[
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: | 2008-10-16 (15:42) |
From: | Adrien <camaradetux@g...> |
Subject: | Re : [Caml-list] OCaml version 3.11.0+beta1 |
2008/10/16, Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr>: > David Allsopp wrote: >> There seems to be an interesting chicken-and-egg source dependency between >> flexdll and OCaml 3.11 - you can't build OCaml 3.11 from source or use it >> afterwards without flexdll and you can't build flexdll from source without >> OCaml. Doesn't that suggest a binary copy of flexdll should be included in >> OCaml's boot directory? All of the other *binary* dependencies for Windows >> OCaml don't require OCaml themselves... just a thought! > > You're right about the circular dependency, but the answer is much > simpler than for the chicken-and-egg question: OCaml came first. > I don't see a compelling reason to include a binary version of flexdll > in the OCaml distribution. Just consider flexdll as an external > dependency that comes in binary form (like the MS C compiler). It just > happens to be produced by the OCaml compiler. > > Note that flexlink.exe can be compiler with an old OCaml compiler. Also, > if you insist to bootstrap everything, it shouldn't be too difficult to > get a minimal (=no dynamic linking of external C code) ocamlrun.exe for > 3.11 that does not require flexlink. > How often should we expect new releases of flexlink ? Basically, the question is : will it have to be updated from time to time or can we just drop it somewhere and forget everything about it ? --- Adrien Nader