From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <norm@cap-lore.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7016C7EE73
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 20:21:19 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  norm@cap-lore.com) identity=pra; client-ip=66.201.51.50;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="norm@cap-lore.com";
  x-sender="norm@cap-lore.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  norm@cap-lore.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=66.201.51.50;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="norm@cap-lore.com";
  x-sender="norm@cap-lore.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@s2.ootbcomp.com designates 66.201.51.50 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=66.201.51.50;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="norm@cap-lore.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@s2.ootbcomp.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGMQmFBCyTMy/2dsb2JhbABEFsMegQiCIzyBfYgdC5lIoTSRXGEDiFqOPY8ogxA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,716,1344204000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="161464879"
Received: from s2.ootbcomp.com ([66.201.51.50])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 05 Nov 2012 20:21:18 +0100
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by s2.ootbcomp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF9E104F08
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 11:21:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ootbcomp.com
Received: from s2.ootbcomp.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (s2.ootbcomp.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id AQeXS2C0Kr8D for <caml-list@inria.fr>;
	Mon,  5 Nov 2012 11:21:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 184-105-243-226.fiber.pao.dinahshotel.com (unknown [184.105.243.226])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: norm)
	by s2.ootbcomp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 081AD104F03
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon,  5 Nov 2012 11:21:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Norman Hardy <norm@cap-lore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:21:13 -0800
Message-Id: <20D75025-C0A1-43A0-89BE-30AD5ED04545@cap-lore.com>
To: Caml List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Subject: [Caml-list] Compiled code that uses the stack when it can.

Is there a way to get ocamlopt to leave the C sources behind?
Does ocamlopt ever use the stack to call functions that it compiled?
Does anyone know of compilers that use the stack when they can but uses the=
 heap when it must?
Is there literature on this?
This slide set is very useful but seems to suggest that internal functions =
representations are treated uniformly.
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/talks/compilation-agay.pdf

I am thinking about static code analysis to determine two or perhaps three =
ways free variables in a function might be handled.
It is hard enough that I would like to see if it has been done before.