Support for -package and -dontlink in linking of output files #38
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mattam82
force-pushed
the
packages-and-dontlink-for-compile
branch
from
9df08cb
to
3df5504
Compare
|
Yes, you can remove the version field. @stedolan would you have time to merge this soon? |
Remove unnecessary version field
|
Done. @stedolan are you ok to merge? |
|
LGTM, thanks! |
stedolan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2024
- 'malfunction compile' now works again with an empty package list - testsuite now explicitly links zarith (required for some tests)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a few options to drive the
ocamlfindlinking, especially useful in our implementation of the malfunction backend of the verified MetaCoq extraction (yforster/coq-verified-extraction#13).I'm not sure why you added a
version: 0.5in your commit, @yforster . Maybe we just remove it?I think otherwise it is ready for review @stedolan