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 XAA26137; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:32:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA26087 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:32:43 +0200 (MET DST) 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 LAA25221 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from wptx49.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (wptx49.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.40.49]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6P9tiT15068 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from wptx47.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (wptx47.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.40.47]) by wptx49.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (8.10.0/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id g6P9thj04982; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:43 +0200 (METDST) Received: (from ohl@localhost) by wptx47.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) id g6P9thh07626; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:43 +0200 From: Thorsten Ohl Message-ID: <15679.51999.25467.235898@wptx47.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:43 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] Functors, Modules and Indirections In-Reply-To: <20020725112136.A23741@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20020724042635.18417.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com> <20020725112136.A23741@pauillac.inria.fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.84 under Emacs 20.7.1 Reply-To: ohl@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy writes: > [...] you pay one more indirection [...] Is there a theoretical reason for the native compiler not to resolve module indirections (including inlining) statically at compile time? [I see that it would break independent compilation for the bytecode compiler, but the native compiler requires recompilation of dependent modules anyway.] Or is there a technical reason other than potential code bloat? Or are there plane to implement it? In most cases, the performance penalty will be only a small constant factor, but it would be nice not having to worry about it at all --- even in hotspots. Curious, -Thorsten -- Thorsten Ohl, Physics Dept., Wuerzburg Univ. -- ohl@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~ohl/ [<=== PGP public key here] ------------------- 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