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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A7917F736 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 19:19:32 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:hH4dexKm1uRzAKmAx9mcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFitYgUKfXxwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAu64C1rad6f2ocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC04Lqi6voptX6WEZhunmUWftKNhK4rAHc5IE9oLBJDeIP8CbPuWZCYO9MxGlldhq5lhf44dqsrtY4q3wD86Fpy8kVdo7zeqBwGbdRCTBjN2Eu+OXqswPCRE2B/C1PfH8Rl09yCg/Y6FnWQ5T8+n/gv+1g3CWyMsj/TLRyUjOnufQ4ACT0gTsKYmZquFrcjdZ92fpW Authentication-Results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=raould@gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=raould@gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail-ob0-f181.google.com Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of raould@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.214.181; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="raould@gmail.com"; x-sender="raould@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of raould@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.214.181; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="raould@gmail.com"; x-sender="raould@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-ob0-f181.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.214.181; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="raould@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ob0-f181.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DWAgAcJAhWlLXWVdFdhGEGqmOGY5NxAoEYBzwQAQEBAQEBAQEQAQEBAQcLCwkfMIIdgggBAQMBEhEdARseAwELBgULDwImAgIiAREBBQEcBjWHdgEDCgipEIEwPjGLR4FsgnmJSwoZJw1WhDYBAQgCARkBBQ6BFIVRhH2FFIJpgUMFjXSHfI0PgU+WA4IhEiOBFziCL4IdHjOJIQEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0DWAgAcJAhWlLXWVdFdhGEGqmOGY5NxAoEYBzwQAQEBAQEBAQEQAQEBAQcLCwkfMIIdgggBAQMBEhEdARseAwELBgULDwImAgIiAREBBQEcBjWHdgEDCgipEIEwPjGLR4FsgnmJSwoZJw1WhDYBAQgCARkBBQ6BFIVRhH2FFIJpgUMFjXSHfI0PgU+WA4IhEiOBFziCL4IdHjOJIQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,598,1437429600"; d="scan'208";a="148730715" Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 27 Sep 2015 19:19:31 +0200 Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so112656917obb.2 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=PDXq9QpKswrcaXDovW6qH1DvDKZnvkbn/G3Qi02fHfQ=; b=iIAOHkkY55H3PepFcqR4w5K1sSuDb3xqhzmvje//v/jhofxjHmXlva060470BU6H2w jS3FIlOBvAcuUiVedqDy1Af84FhaDhigbp7S8rZ6puX0/69/jH1OBRMHEpJXGxJJzyKw p57lchjaMXpsRTGjiA+lslqthP2ine/LUdGjroM95/NtUayv9k0fv/e0afLdYR9WA8ky NHyzfFT29SldFiHmC+ZTXvCtuKcocBiVpE/25B8l7IlUpAIoFnMZrcIfBTo/BEghPdaf l3rqqE1ci/KDH5m0t1HV+aGJgyZwEVTbVj9Fw3HYWBvvCAAhV263MV0YxutiTiBa4CYh whtw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.118.202 with SMTP id ko10mr8223692obb.25.1443374369431; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.172.36 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:19:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1acefe77c30ce33c0adba49605bd9325@whitequark.org> References: <1443259698.4442.12.camel@e130.lan.sumadev.de> <1acefe77c30ce33c0adba49605bd9325@whitequark.org> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:19:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Raoul Duke To: OCaml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] whither portability? > 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.)