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 XAA10749; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:36:27 +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 XAA10956 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:36:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx1.mail.ru (mx1.mail.ru [194.67.23.21]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAPMaN123682; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:36:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from [81.56.190.171] (port=53980 helo=localhost) by mx1.mail.ru with smtp id 1AOln9-000HRE-00; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:36:19 +0300 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:38:46 +0100 From: Kim Nguyen To: caml-list@inria.fr Cc: Xavier Leroy Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Profiling a function execution Message-Id: <20031125233846.7bf8fcc3.nguyen@bk.ru> In-Reply-To: <20031125190553.B1064@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <81F621FD-1629-11D8-A1E1-000393DBC266@epfl.ch> <20031125190553.B1064@pauillac.inria.fr> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__25_Nov_2003_23_38_46_+0100_xMS7PDRKK+hurf9q" X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; kim:99 caml-list:01 hacks:01 dynlink:01 incompatible:01 kim:99 compiler:01 compiler:01 compilers:01 nov:01 native:02 external:03 module:03 module:03 wrote:03 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk --Signature=_Tue__25_Nov_2003_23_38_46_+0100_xMS7PDRKK+hurf9q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:05:53 +0100 Xavier Leroy wrote: Hello, > Some clever hacks involving external C functions were given on this list. > I'm not sure I would endorse them :-) Is this for a "political" reason (this 'side effect' of the compiler should not be exposed to the casual user or can this hack lead to an unsafety of some kind ? (in code generation or something else ?) > We're working hard on removing the last discrepancies > between the two compilers... Does this include a Dynlink module for native code ? ( or is such a module incompatible with the design of the compiler or with type safety ? ) Regards, Kim Nguyen. --Signature=_Tue__25_Nov_2003_23_38_46_+0100_xMS7PDRKK+hurf9q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/w9n5GqhFkfuNlVkRAvnpAJoCyT6Io5YV5xxmzpPxRsXODjV/hwCeMb5U 1vJHcJl2TLEwbiCToUVeYhw= =UdlB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__25_Nov_2003_23_38_46_+0100_xMS7PDRKK+hurf9q-- ------------------- 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