From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D014BB84 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:53:56 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0CAH9u7khC+Vytmmdsb2JhbACBck2QXD4BAQEBAQYNCgcRA6MJhxIBAg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,386,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17899181" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2008 05:53:56 +0200 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m9A3rtj0011237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:53:56 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0CAH9u7khC+Vytmmdsb2JhbACBck2QXD4BAQEBAQYNCgcRA6MJhxIBAg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,386,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17899180" Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2008 05:53:55 +0200 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1033758ugc.28 for ; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:53:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:organization:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; bh=9/HWBf2lL+dGHi7KLt8/JGPIbKa1AacxRSddoRdQydI=; b=OsAhB/++shh/IqhLEEGqYI9tAtsZ45y89fVL6Q8jwdJLOSez+BbhWzMF/iRgY8W0UC 1NKZb+EBVgd2Ouvb+GAHf1KYW6LZGW4ChIu6Ev01kQ/b5PzAQIjGaiE6JnbAZDn/XFnw baoRiZlChes/ZK/+Xm/jFhT4IBXpMPoP7TqJM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id:from; b=r5bmNPMTaef19/dUJdHCgaoFoHizhZrV/4xzwZypYjLZfsU7EDky+HxTf53M4ZrjWv Fk4t5nAxn7/NbpaMfh1fC97mBR9QX+f5TONGirhecx2txG2O9SrWvr9ld6V8Mp6Lztys gFGB8hMWkUHFllCNRXZWEHmXFddFyEWCOzwBQ= Received: by 10.210.63.5 with SMTP id l5mr1225883eba.52.1223610834913; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leper.local (host86-139-250-145.range86-139.btcentralplus.com [86.139.250.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm2086083gvf.7.2008.10.09.20.53.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] - Convert Caml to C/C++, C#, PHP, etc - Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:55:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <19791755.post@talk.nabble.com> <200810100526.49635.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20081010143053.275b0ca3.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: <20081010143053.275b0ca3.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810100555.03765.jon@ffconsultancy.com> From: Jon Harrop X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 48EED1D3.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 bytecodes:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 ocaml's:01 bytecodes:01 byterun:01 interp:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 metaocaml:01 interop:01 run-time:01 iirc:01 On Friday 10 October 2008 04:30:53 Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > You mean the program that generates OCaml's bytecodes is > > written in OCaml. > > Commonly known as a compiler. One of the compilers, yes. > > the program that executes OCaml's bytecodes > > Commonly known as a virtual machine. No, I was referring specifically to the interpreter (byterun/interp.c) and not the run time. So not the whole VM. What is done with the rest of the VM is up in the air. An interpreter of OCaml's bytecode written in OCaml or a JIT compiler written in MetaOCaml would just use their own run time. A JIT compiler using LLVM would probably interop with the existing run-time. IIRC, there are differences between the native code and byte code run times but I do not recall the specifics. I don't know which would be easiest to target from a JIT compiler. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e