From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA11720; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:24:12 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11522 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:24:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from moby.atcorp.com (moby.atcorp.com [204.72.172.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i28GO9V7011156 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:24:10 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.36] (conger.atcorp.com [204.72.172.102]) by moby.atcorp.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i28GPdZ21282 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:25:39 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0A0E269A-711D-11D8-8BF5-000393914EAA@atcorp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Eric Dahlman Subject: [Caml-list] Differences between interpreted/compiled code Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:24:14 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; howdy:01 bug:01 hypothesis:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 byte:01 tco:97 parser:02 enlighten:02 stack:02 stack:02 string:03 parsers:03 interpreter:03 library:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 75 Howdy, I am trying to track down a bug and I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to the difference between the execution of compiled code and byte code. I remember someone on this list mention that there should not be any detectable difference between the two but my test is busting the stack in one case but no the other. My first guess is that the interpreter may not be performing tail call optimization where the compiler is but I am not clear as to whether that counts as an "observable" difference. I the code which breaks is in a library which uses an ocaml lexer and parser to interpret a string so as support for my running hypothesis do the generated parsers assume that TCO will be properly performed? What are the differences between the two execution models and could that be contributing to my stack problems? Thanks, -Eric ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners