From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oandrieu@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB859BC69
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  7 Mar 2007 22:24:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.185])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l27LOmEJ026869
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:24:48 +0100
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so325240nfc
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:24:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=HA4oZGw0/mhGxj6mqHazCELeqpR0M4uQeL68FR7r84D6/7PnDMwwiTXVrSHvp2UlX8g1Wy5ZhSgGxPSBhrXK6F82Q3eeMYmHfOWnndK7NH7fLsW6cafcd8qmwmwX1vZ1QyeRJKzhrTtfxB/SOz79oJ6ZjyDnRmrUIED/ik/Utqc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=aLkZrc7SYBMnmlHGd/zELRe6VxFFzegazq6x7qzRSPf59CkWVaFYpT6LXI9auvksTODjtYYO6Rc8jZpx4e2DGUYpwZfGMCelcyaqM2Hmw/A2n5i8q/5c+0rMD4S+cVMECwoRf5Jq1US2BZfCprPKHsm9Ae2ncD7/oohtyrPUyGk=
Received: by 10.114.198.1 with SMTP id v1mr2346805waf.1173302686558;
        Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.115.108.16 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <95513600703071324j3602604bw4d87a5dee3797c7f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:24:46 +0100
From: "Olivier Andrieu" <oandrieu@nerim.net>
Sender: oandrieu@gmail.com
To: "Jakob Lichtenberg" <jakobl@windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Dependencies and rebuilding
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, "Donn Terry" <donnte@windows.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <43CD2D195487A448934920501C6EDB2303E342C2@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <43CD2D195487A448934920501C6EDB2303E342C2@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 561b40dbdce4b5c4
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45EF2DA0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; andrieu:01 oandrieu:01 dependencies:01 rebuilding:01 externally:01 recompile:01 trivial:01 inlining:01 ocamlopt:01 cmx:01 compilation:01 cmx:01 wrote:01 lichtenberg:01 caml-list:01 

On 3/7/07, Jakob Lichtenberg <jakobl@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
> If I change the body of functions in a base library, but not the
> externally visible signature, I still have to recompile the consumers of
> the base library prior to linking the main application.  While this is
> not a problem in the trivial case I'll show beneath, it may be a concern
> from a componentization and scalability point of view.  Regular C code
> does not have this limitation.  This e-mail to request why the design is
> as it is?

I'd say cross-module inlining of code ?

This happens because ocamlopt finds the base.cmx file during the
compilation of consumer. If you put your base module in a library and
remove the .cmx file, consumer won't depend on the implementation of
base, only on its interface.

-- 
  Olivier