Walid,

although Dynamic Caml does not (yet) work on native code, we have 
implemented (a while ago actually) a very preliminary prototype
implementation of it for i386. We do not use ocamlopt for code
generation however - we implemented a custom code generator. Do you
think it is difficult to make ocamlopt generate machine code instead of
assembler, and why do you think one needs linking at all? (Probably it
all different in MetaOCaml - I have not studied the internals)

As to dealing with runtime, I do not see much differences between 
bytecode and native code case - at least in Dynamic Caml. What problems
do you perceive?

Friendly,
Dmitry
 

> 
> Hello,
> 
> We've been working on a while on building MetaOCaml, which provides three
> basic constructs for contructing programs at runtime and compiling them.
> This seems to be working well in the context of the bytecode compiler.
> For the native code compiler, though, things seems to be more tricky.  In
> particular, the native code compiler produces assembly code.  This has to
> be assembled, linked, and loaded to memory.  Does any one know of a fast
> way to do the last three steps (other than calling the assembler, linker,
> and loader).  Also, has anyone dealt with the issue of coordinating the
> runtime for the original running image and the newly produced runnable
> image (in particular, has anyone dealt with the garbage collection
> issues?)
> 
> Walid.
> 
-- 
Dmitry Lomov
IntelliJ Labs / JetBrains Inc.
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

-------------------
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