From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F7D7F736; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 19:41:31 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:TpcYIxaYB2hGRfBuaaNyMQX/LSx+4OfEezUN459isYplN5qZpcu5bnLW6fgltlLVR4KTs6sC0LqK9f28EjdZqb+681k8M7V0HycfjssXmwFySOWkMmbcaMDQUiohAc5ZX0Vk9XzoeWJcGcL5ekGA6ibqtW1aJBzzOEJPK/jvHcaK1oLsh7z0psGYOFwArQH+SI0xBS3+lR/WuMgSjNkqAYcK4TyNnEF1ff9Lz3hjP1OZkkW0zM6x+Jl+73YY4Kp5pIZoGJ/3dKUgTLFeEC9ucyVsvJWq5lH/Sl6173wBVi06jxlFS1zf5RbnWpvZvS7zt+470y6fa57YV7cxDCui7rtmUQLhkiRPYyE58X3ak9F5lqFzvxKguxFm3ofOY8eSLvUoLfCVRs8TWWcUBpUZbCdGGI7pKtJXV+c= Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=whitequark@whitequark.org; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=whitequark@whitequark.org; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.whitequark.org Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of whitequark@whitequark.org) identity=pra; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of whitequark@whitequark.org designates 176.58.103.125 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.whitequark.org) identity=helo; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CcBADQKQhW/31nOrBdx0iCVgKBWxABAQEBAQEBAYEJgh2CCAEBBDgCPxAEBwkPLiwrBhuIKssGAQEIAiCKS4ElhQ0HhCwBBI1wiACBUIs7gVOWA4NtOCuEBDuJVAEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CcBADQKQhW/31nOrBdx0iCVgKBWxABAQEBAQEBAYEJgh2CCAEBBDgCPxAEBwkPLiwrBhuIKssGAQEIAiCKS4ElhQ0HhCwBBI1wiACBUIs7gVOWA4NtOCuEBDuJVAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,598,1437429600"; d="scan'208";a="179638746" Received: from fehu.whitequark.org (HELO mail.whitequark.org) ([176.58.103.125]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2015 19:41:30 +0200 Received: by mail.whitequark.org (Postfix, from userid 33) id C461A138FDC; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:41:29 +0000 (UTC) To: Raoul Duke X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1000:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:41:29 +0300 From: whitequark Cc: OCaml , caml-list-request@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: <1443259698.4442.12.camel@e130.lan.sumadev.de> <1acefe77c30ce33c0adba49605bd9325@whitequark.org> Message-ID: <3eec2747fc6b8a266ac2e38773423b05@whitequark.org> X-Sender: whitequark@whitequark.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.0 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] whither portability? On 2015-09-27 20:19, Raoul Duke wrote: >> Right now, LLVM IR (of which the bitcode is a serialization) is not >> flexible enough to express the invariants and metadata required >> for the OCaml GC to function[1]. Even if someone released the >> necessary, >> highly nontrivial changes to both LLVM and OCaml today, it would take >> many months for them to be reviewed, merged & propagated into Apple's >> LLVM fork--all for a small improvement in a select few numeric >> workloads >> that can benefit from using the instruction selector tailored for >> the particular device, and a substantial reduction in being able to >> debug your code[2]. > > Thanks for the details. I am (only) a little bit aware of the history > of LLVM vs. GCs, so I can believe what you report. I would much prefer > to be able to debug, as well. > > (Given Apple, I wouldn't be surprised if an a year they required > bitcode, however.) It is already required for Apple Watch. Given that bitcode allows to include inline assembly, I wonder if one could just take OCaml's output, put it in one giant module-level inline assembly block, and ship it like that. -- whitequark