English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
ocaml support in autotools
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2006-08-03 (21:10)
From: Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+ocaml@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml support in autotools
Guillaume Rousse wrote:

> So my current opinion is:
> - have AC_PROG_OCAML fails if ocamlc is not found
> - have AC_PROG_CAMLP4 fails if ocamlp4 is not found
> - have all other macros never fail
> Second, what to do with optimised versions ? It is desirable for the
> user or the developer to be able to select between optimised and
> non-optimised version of a given tool ?
> If not, having a single variable for each tool, silently defined to the
> optimised version if available and usable, would be the best option.
> OCAMLC would then correspond to ocamlc.opt or ocamlc

I thing you should have separate AC_PROG_OCAMLC and AC_PROG_OCAMLOPT
with separate variables.
> Third, I'd like some standard macro to allow the user to select if he
> wants bytcode compilation, native compilation, or both, the same as you
> have when using libtool for producing either static or dynamic
> libraries. Does it makes senses to add those switches to AC_PROG_OCAML,
> and to define additional variables, such as OCAML_WANT_BYTECODE and

Works for me.

  Erik de Castro Lopo
I have found that good programmers either do not make the kind
of mistakes that Ada can prevent, or insert enough checks that
they catch those mistakes about as efficiently as an Ada
environment can. At that point, the use of Ada gives no further
productivity advantage.