From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB9LMNP2028217 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:22:26 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsIAC174k5QRFuw/2dsb2JhbABDqVKBJ4EFgXIBAQU6PxALGBwSFCghiBy1ZIUXhXhjBJRvkig X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,328,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="122800727" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 22:22:25 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ7tY-0007bB-Bu; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:22:16 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:22:16 +0000 From: "Richard W.M. Jones" To: Benedikt Meurer Cc: Gabriel Scherer , =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Glondu , oleg@okmij.org, caml-list@inria.fr, ontologiae@gmail.com, caml@inria.fr Message-ID: <20111209212216.GA29092@annexia.org> References: <20111209065758.94306.qmail@eeoth.pair.com> <4EE1BE59.4020804@glondu.net> <59A74C55-C12B-4C98-9496-2E83BE8A39F0@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59A74C55-C12B-4C98-9496-2E83BE8A39F0@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why NOT to compile OCaml via C On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote: > Hm, I'm not sure. It's really easy to generate LLVM code for OCaml > in general, the problem is getting things to interact with legacy > OCaml code, with exception handling being one of the most important > issue. As Edwin said, I don't think interaction with existing ocamlopt- compiled code is that important. Debian and Fedora routinely "recompile the world". What is more important is compatibility with C extensions. How difficult is just C extension compatibility? Or something that was mostly compatible but needed a few changes to C extensions? Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat