On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 03:51:52PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I would also suspect code generation or GC. Did you try asking on
> > upstream Coq / OCaml mailing lists?
>
> No, I haven't. But see below.
>
> > Having said that, rela
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I would also suspect code generation or GC. Did you try asking on
> upstream Coq / OCaml mailing lists?
No, I haven't. But see below.
> Having said that, relatively long-running programs are working OK for
> me.
How about on i386?
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:09:17PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> > I'm having a problem with building the coq package for the new OCaml
> > 4.00.0, and I'm at my wits' end. There were some bad interactions
> > between the new OCaml, camlp5, and
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> I'm having a problem with building the coq package for the new OCaml
> 4.00.0, and I'm at my wits' end. There were some bad interactions
> between the new OCaml, camlp5, and coq which I think I have
> successfully worked around. (It isn't pr
I'm having a problem with building the coq package for the new OCaml
4.00.0, and I'm at my wits' end. There were some bad interactions
between the new OCaml, camlp5, and coq which I think I have
successfully worked around. (It isn't pretty, but it seems to do the
job.) But now, after the tools a
