Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] functor question
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Thorsten Ohl <ohl@p...>
Subject: [Caml-list] Functors, Modules and Indirections
Xavier Leroy <> writes:

> [...] you pay one more indirection [...]

Is there a theoretical reason for the native compiler not to resolve
module indirections (including inlining) statically at compile time?
[I see that it would break independent compilation for the bytecode
compiler, but the native compiler requires recompilation of dependent
modules anyway.]

Or is there a technical reason other than potential code bloat?

Or are there plane to implement it?

In most cases, the performance penalty will be only a small constant
factor, but it would be nice not having to worry about it at all ---
even in hotspots.

Thorsten Ohl, Physics Dept., Wuerzburg Univ. --     [<=== PGP public key here]
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: