From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68153BBAF for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:08:27 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGZS/ExQRFuw/2dsb2JhbACjMXG8foIUgzUE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,305,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="83177754" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 06 Dec 2010 12:08:27 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PPYvi-0002iz-44; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:08:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:08:26 +0000 To: Benedikt Meurer Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: ocamlopt LLVM support (Was: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT) Message-ID: <20101206110826.GA10407@annexia.org> References: <0a8b01cb90da$da5e6240$8f1b26c0$@com> <5E2DA3F1-7998-4F62-B617-7B6451D1001D@googlemail.com> <0b3b01cb9161$a81c8e10$f855aa30$@com> <0b9301cb91a3$8f42fd60$adc8f820$@com> <0cae01cb9325$a8ddc3d0$fa994b70$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 0100,:01 compiler:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 bindings:01 camlidl:01 pointers:01 wrote:01 rewrite:01 caml-list:01 binding:02 native:03 handles:03 library:03 On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 05:37:32PM +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote: > 1. You will have to rewrite not only the compiler, the standard > library and the bytecode interpreter (already a massive amount of > work), but you also loose compatibility with almost every existing > OCaml library binding, since the native function interface will be > different. That's a hell of a lot of work for many people. It might kick-start efforts to automatically generate bindings, at least to C code, which wouldn't be a bad thing. camlidl is clumsy and doesn't handle a very important case (pointers to handles) so it's not really useful for this. I do agree with the rest of your points though, and it's good to have intelligent discussion of the real issues at long last. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat