From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDA5BBC4 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:34:49 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwDAFgrr0lN6B+kmGdsb2JhbACBTpF9gTYBAQEBAQgJDAcRwn6ECAY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,305,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="23892298" Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru (HELO akado.ru) ([77.232.31.164]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 10:34:49 +0100 Received: from [10.0.66.9] ([10.0.66.9] verified) by fe01-cgp.akado.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTP id 61560011; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:34:48 +0300 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:34:54 +0300 (MSK) From: malc X-X-Sender: malc@linmac.oyster.ru To: Richard Jones Cc: yoann padioleau , Jon Harrop , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] stl? In-Reply-To: <20090305090621.GB24055@annexia.org> Message-ID: References: <91a2ba3e0903031340wcdc976cp52522eb35f7ccb73@mail.gmail.com> <200903050131.03494.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <49AF35B8.9030104@naughtydog.com> <200903050326.57931.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5001040.203359.1236234148184.JavaMail.www@wwinf2209> <20090305090621.GB24055@annexia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam: no; 0.00; malc:01 stl:01 0100,:01 struct:01 bitfields:01 marshalling:01 hacked:01 ocaml:01 2009:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 preprocessor:01 caml-list:01 match:02 guess:04 On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 07:22:28AM +0100, yoann padioleau wrote: > > Qemu is written in C, because I guess indeed C struct and union > > and bitfields makes it easy to match directly to the hardware (no marshalling, > > there is direct mapping). > > I was hacking on qemu last week, and wishing it wasn't written in C. I'm genuinely curious as to what part of QEMU being not written in C would have been a net win.. > > There's not much of a technical reason why it couldn't have been > written in a higher level language. Bitfield manipulation would be > more painful unless there was a bitstring-like preprocessor added. > > The real reason to use C was to get wider development support. Qemu > also happens to be security critical (all those hacked up C device > emulations offer exploit possibilities for the guests). And it has > frequent vulnerabilities. Go figure ... I'm sorry, but i don't see how writing device emulation in OCaml would have made it automatically safer. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru