Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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 <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> 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.

Curious,
-Thorsten
-- 
Thorsten Ohl, Physics Dept., Wuerzburg Univ. -- ohl@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~ohl/     [<=== PGP public key here]
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners