Re: [Caml-list] OCaml on zLinux

[Michel Mauny <Michel.Mauny@inria.fr>]

David Allsopp écrit/writes [05/07/2013 09:55] :
> Michel Mauny wrote:

>> Now, I don't think it would be a good idea to call this ocamlopt, since
>> ocamlcc is an extension of ocamlc compilation chain, whereas ocamlopt is
>> not.
> 
> Is there not a case for being able to call it ocamlopt on architectures where there isn't an actual native code compiler, though? It would seem on the surface to allow OCaml to claim native code compilation on all architectures the compiler can be built on - even if on some presumably the native performance will not be as good as on others.

It would be more honest to claim native code compilation through a
compilation route made of ocamlc + ocamlcc. Calling this ocamlopt
would let think that a set of source files together with their
Makefile would just work, and this is not true. Options are different,
intermediate files are different, features are different, etc.

Having the same features as ocamlopt is an interesting goal, but it's
too early to wrap ocamlcc in something called ocamlopt.

And I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all :-)

> Are there (m)any cases where you'd want to use ocamlcc instead of
> ocamlopt on architectures which support the latter?

One case could be the distribution of software as a single bytecode
executable (no source) that could be changed into native code by
OCamlCC on any architecture where ocamlc is supported.

- Michel

-- 
Michel Mauny

ENSTA ParisTech