WebSafe 3.7github.com
|
|
🏠
Skip to content

fix: rescript-legacy broken for ppx's#8103

Merged
cknitt merged 2 commits intorescript-lang:masterfrom
illusionalsagacity:fix-8090-ppx
Dec 26, 2025
Merged

fix: rescript-legacy broken for ppx's#8103
cknitt merged 2 commits intorescript-lang:masterfrom
illusionalsagacity:fix-8090-ppx

Conversation

@illusionalsagacity
Copy link
Contributor

This resolves PPX errors on v12 for rescript-legacy with "Ill-formed list of warnings" after removal of -bs-v flag. The mtime was previous appended to the -bs-v flag, after the change in #7627 it was being appended to the warnings flag instead, causing the compiler error

Fixes #8090

This resolves PPX errors with "Ill-formed list of warnings" after removal of -bs-v flag. The mtime from being appended to the -bs-v flag, after the change in rescript-lang#7627 it was being appended to the warnings flag instead, causing the compiler error

Fixes rescript-lang#8090

Signed-off-by: Rob <illusionalsagacity@users.noreply.github.com>
@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Dec 25, 2025

Open in StackBlitz

rescript

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript@8103

@rescript/darwin-arm64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/darwin-arm64@8103

@rescript/darwin-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/darwin-x64@8103

@rescript/linux-arm64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/linux-arm64@8103

@rescript/linux-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/linux-x64@8103

@rescript/runtime

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/runtime@8103

@rescript/win32-x64

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript-lang/rescript/@rescript/win32-x64@8103

commit: 7430518

@cknitt
Copy link
Member

cknitt commented Dec 26, 2025

Just removing this is certainly the easiest solution if we don't want to bring -bs-v back / to invest any more effort into the legacy build system.

BTW, rewatch currently doesn't currently check if a ppx was updated either. Maybe there could also be a hash over any ppx binaries like the bsc_hash implemented in #7889.

Any thoughts @nojaf?

@nojaf
Copy link
Member

nojaf commented Dec 26, 2025

@cknitt are you talking about third-party ppx binaries here?
Because the ones shipped with the compiler would be caught by existing bsc hash (more or less).

@cknitt
Copy link
Member

cknitt commented Dec 26, 2025

Yes, I meant third-party ppx.

@cknitt cknitt merged commit 814bfca into rescript-lang:master Dec 26, 2025
25 checks passed
@illusionalsagacity illusionalsagacity deleted the fix-8090-ppx branch December 26, 2025 18:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

3 participants

Comments