From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA19775 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:12:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA01336 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:41:29 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.1])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA11899;
	Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:41:27 +0100 (MET)
Received: from lambda.u-strasbg.fr (mail@lambda.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.75.49])
	by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07995;
	Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:41:19 +0100
Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 1292Jv-0003Io-00; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:42:59 +0100
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:42:58 +0100
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
Cc: dsl@tepkom.ru, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Byte-code specs.
Message-ID: <20000114094258.A11868@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
Reply-To: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr
Mail-Followup-To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>, dsl@tepkom.ru,
	caml-list@inria.fr
References: <3871F772.E37F9955@tepkom.ru> <20000113104727.17845@pauillac.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i
In-Reply-To: <20000113104727.17845@pauillac.inria.fr>; from Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr on Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:47:27AM +0100
Sender: weis

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:47:27AM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > Are there any specs for CAML bytecode?
> 
> Not much.  There is an old technical report (1990!) that documents
> the Caml Light virtual machine in some details:
> 
>         http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi/ZINC.ps.gz
> 
> The Objective Caml virtual machine is a second iteration of the Caml
> Light VM, with some complications removed (e.g. one stack instead of
> two).  However, there is no paper spec for it.

And is there any document that gives some description of the execution costs
of different ocaml constructs ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER