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 pB9N1BQ6030661
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:01:12 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjACAACS4k7AbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDhQaldCIBARYmBCGBcgEBBSNWEAsJCQYCAiYCAhQYHR4JiAmkMpEnFIEghySCBDNjBI03hziSKQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,328,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="122806038"
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Dec 2011 00:01:10 +0100
X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de
Received: from first (e178012209.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.12.209])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id pB9N18HM015506
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:01:08 +0100
Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 3D12F1540359; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:01:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:01:08 +0100
From: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: oleg@okmij.org
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, ontologiae@gmail.com
Message-ID: <20111209230108.GC8946@siouxsie>
References: <20111209065758.94306.qmail@eeoth.pair.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111209065758.94306.qmail@eeoth.pair.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why NOT to compile OCaml via C

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 06:57:58AM -0000, oleg@okmij.org wrote:
> 
> Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote:
> 
> > Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or
> > architecture port would disappear...
> > Ocaml would have more than 30 target[1]
> > In my Opinion, trying to generate assembler is a bad idea because modern CPU
> > require a lot of work to generate good assembler.
> 
> There are many good reasons to avoid C when compiling functional
> languages, especially strict ones.
> 
> One often hears that ``C is a portable assembler''. That has never
> been true. One of the reasons is that every assembler I know has the
> "jmp" instruction, which, without affecting SP, transfers control
> anywhere, out of a procedure or in the middle of a procedure, out of a
> module or into a module. C is built around the stack discipline --
> after all, C is a descendant of Algol 60. (Although C has labels, they
> are limited, even in GCC). Although Algol-60 researchers quickly
> recognized the value of tail recursion, all that knowledge was lost in
> the Dark Ages.
[...]

This somehow is a good example on "OCaml maintenance status..:" thread
and "Some comments on recent discussions" thread...


If this thread comes to a conclusion, the conclusion maybe can be sent to the OCaml core team...
... if it has new insights.

But my guess is, that we end at a point, where OCaml already is,
because I think these kind of dicsussions were already made,
when the design was chosen.

If something new evolves it could be sent to the core team.
But I just doubt, that this will happen here ;)

Ciao,
   Oliver