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 pBFBEIAZ016133 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:14:18 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkgBAFzV6U5KfVM2kGdsb2JhbABEqyUIIgEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhgXIBAQEDARICLAEbHQEDDAYFCw0uIgERAQUBHAYTIodYmn8Ki2WCa4RtQIhxAgULi3wEjT2HOY11PYN5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,356,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="123477718" Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 15 Dec 2011 12:14:13 +0100 Received: by eekc50 with SMTP id c50so2548333eek.27 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:14:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NqiKyIb7R88dahQhSDnYl1b3SW/h3JvaSy9Tk2WuBhU=; b=qQkgKSWaa+PvfOZDmR2Jn+2U+hnNuX0Zns1xLB9oNy8deC6PsF+AWGg8t2l8Hp3YtT 4ECtzA/MzGrZQR5c771cdzY+z4eFwo5ms9IF0aWP+5F9VbqLZ7ReiqVG2zi14BRME3QR 14suxQWm2rs75bfgFyoGC9gmiKVa1rqnTlXK8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.11.93 with SMTP id 69mr1185745eew.67.1323947652882; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.10.148 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:14:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EE8D506.1040800@frisch.fr> References: <4EDE33A0.6070004@gmail.com> <1323760512.9833.9.camel@samsung> <4EE711FB.5020602@frisch.fr> <4EE83C26.7090108@frisch.fr> <4EE86D90.6080409@gmail.com> <4EE87976.4030604@frisch.fr> <4EE8D506.1040800@frisch.fr> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adrien To: Alain Frisch Cc: Jonathan Protzenko , Martin DeMello , Gerd Stolpmann , caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Some comments on recent discussions On 14/12/2011, Alain Frisch wrote: > On 12/14/2011 02:37 PM, Adrien wrote: >> I don't think it would be possible to live without a C toolchain simply >> because we use C libraries all the time. > > It depends on who is "we". I can imagine that library developers still > need a C toolchain but release binary packages that don't. True. I tend to see the whole toolchain as a single element that you don't split but it should be possible to only provide binutils. >> I'm quite interested in the ability to create .cmxs files without a C >> compiler and can already picture me using it. I've also noticed Benedikt's >> ocamlnat work. Would it be usable to script native-code applications? >> Maybe with less requirements? > > FWIW, LexiFi's application is distributed together with flexlink.exe and > ocamlopt.exe, and it can recompile and dynamically load user-defined > plugins without any other external tool. (Our clients don't need to > install anything else to write, compile and run native OCaml code.) > > Benedikt's work on ocamlnat also includes a similar direct code > generator as ours(to avoid the external assembler); I don't think it > comes with a COFF file emitter, though. But yes, ocamlnat can be used > to script native-code applications. OK, thanks. As I've stated, I'm really interested in this ability. I see them as complementary with ocamlnat making it possible to quickly do one-time scripts and experimentations while .cmxs files would be used for persistant plugins. I can't start using them right now but I think that I'll try them in a few months. Regards, Adrien Nader