Resolving conflicts in bytecomp/ #197
Merged
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
lukemaurer
reviewed
Oct 23, 2023
mshinwell
force-pushed
the
ocaml5-resolve-conflicts-bytecomp
branch
from
0848c76 to
216882f
Compare
lukemaurer
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@lukemaurer please could you review this, and check carefully - it's likely I've made mistakes here. One thing you might want to do is to diff the files on this branch directly from the
tip-5tag, rather than looking directly at this PR's diff. This shows our changes compared to upstream OCaml 5, so that diff should kind of look like the original symbols patch (plus some other minor modifications for other bytecode files which should be straightforward). Unfortunately there were changes in OCaml 5 regarding the relocation processing, although it now seems to me that maybe they don't matter too much, since we don't need the renaming of relocations any more (iirc)?