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 pB9A7DvT005153 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:07:13 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMBAPDc4U7RVdc2kGdsb2JhbABDhQalWwgiAQEBAQkJDQcUBCGBcgEBAQQBAg8CDxUIARscAQEDDAYFCw0CAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBEQUMAQUBHAYNAQcBAR6HbZoLCoscSIJrhEU9iHECBQyBKIkogRYEkkuCJYVLgTWGcT2Deg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,325,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="122720445" Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 11:07:07 +0100 Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so787192lah.27 for ; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:07:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZM+NPMAIhSoQ36K/yOfPD4SUTeePsnxMjsIYDymoxH4=; b=g/GuuOK7ooTqMzi4k3NVV7d2BD/M2MsqziE+QgVI6N7vow7DLeng7OX79r0sqbmI9g kakVkfxLMFPcsCfoBNSzWKZ4vWO9QIrTjID5vhSx4ulr3xBTN1i6/hHvqyWAORozhW76 17yrC3m/p+A1fyHh00G6osO0KItcKg3rzhbMI= Received: by 10.152.132.231 with SMTP id ox7mr4376091lab.22.1323425227238; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.93.11.91] (sauternes.inria.fr. [128.93.11.91]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nw10sm7180552lab.4.2011.12.09.02.06.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:06:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EE1DDBB.8040404@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:06:51 +0100 From: Jonathan Protzenko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0a1) Gecko/20111209 Thunderbird/11.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Scherer CC: oleg@okmij.org, ontologiae@gmail.com, caml-list@inria.fr, caml@inria.fr, =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= References: <20111209065758.94306.qmail@eeoth.pair.com> <4EE1BE59.4020804@glondu.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-devel] [Caml-list] Why NOT to compile OCaml via C On Fri 09 Dec 2011 10:58:31 AM CET, Gabriel Scherer wrote: >> I find the idea of making ocamlopt a GCC (or >> LLVM) frontend the most sensible and constructive one I've seen in these >> discussions. > > Note that, besides Oleg excellent description of some issues, the idea > has already been discussed a few times before, here and on llvm-dev: > - http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-November/011525.html > (discussion on llvm-dev) > - http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2010/11/315de2fb3656166edba13bb657fa691f.fr.html > (Benedikt Meurer: why ocamljit2 isn't an LLVM backend) > - https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/arc/caml-list/2011-08/msg00192.html > (Pierre-Alexandre Voyes: question about a C backend; further > discussion of the DDC case) > - https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/arc/caml-list/2011-08/msg00003.html > (Wojciech Meyer: announcement of an ocaml compiler framework project > with goal and structure similar to LLVM) http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/043719.html is an interesting email thread on the same topic, discussing some very specific issues as to why llvm is not necessarily a good compiler backend. jonathan