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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BAEE81792 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dra-news@metastack.com) identity=pra; client-ip=81.103.221.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dra-news@metastack.com"; x-sender="dra-news@metastack.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Neutral (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of dra-news@metastack.com does not assert whether or not 81.103.221.47 is permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=81.103.221.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dra-news@metastack.com"; x-sender="dra-news@metastack.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) identity=helo; client-ip=81.103.221.47; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dra-news@metastack.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcAAG971lFRZ90vlGdsb2JhbABagmiBHMAwfRYOAQEBAQcNCQkUAyWCJAEBBDpPAgEIIhQQMiUCBBuICAO4Yo86OIMEaQOXSZRWgig X-IPAS-Result: AqcAAG971lFRZ90vlGdsb2JhbABagmiBHMAwfRYOAQEBAQcNCQkUAyWCJAEBBDpPAgEIIhQQMiUCBBuICAO4Yo86OIMEaQOXSZRWgig X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1000,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="24697058" Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2013 09:55:34 +0200 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20130705075534.DSOI4711.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:55:34 +0100 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20130705075533.SLLX27539.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com> for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:55:33 +0100 Received: from remus.metastack.local (remus.metastack.com [172.16.0.1]) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r657tVC6001269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:55:31 +0100 Received: from Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2]) by Remus.metastack.local ([fe80::547c:3c42:e1da:eda2%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:55:31 +0100 From: David Allsopp To: "caml-list@inria.fr" Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] OCaml on zLinux Thread-Index: AQHOY4qqP92qKy13j0yJLgzfgwnyS5lTMd4AgACcT4CAAF3fAIAA+bUAgACfs4CAAB0AkA== Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:55:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <51B1EBC1.3010401@lexifi.com> <20130703154910.GA23355@annexia.org> <51D4CB15.3070400@riken.jp> <51D519D4.4030205@inria.fr> <20130704213820.GA23943@annexia.org> <51D67143.7050100@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <51D67143.7050100@inria.fr> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.16.0.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Organization: MetaStack Solutions Ltd. X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 172.16.0.20 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=GaEGOwq9FwezmTggA+b6yC6zDZF2HYaK6RN/tSqdnVA= c=1 sm=0 a=IXlcok0kcmcA:10 a=L1PzsWp0xOIA:10 a=cTs9vV391PwA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=YlaBmp5h1bHsp27iy-cA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Subject: RE: [Caml-list] OCaml on zLinux Michel Mauny wrote: >=20 > 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 whe= re 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 architectur= es the compiler can be built on - even if on some presumably the native per= formance will not be as good as on others. Are there (m)any cases where you'd want to use ocamlcc instead of ocamlopt = on architectures which support the latter? David