On Sunday 17 November 2002 02:41 am, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:24:10PM -0500, Oleg wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 November 2002 06:16 pm, malc wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Oleg wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I found the same question in the archives, but with no answers: why
> > > > isn't there a native code toplevel? Sometimes I need high performance
> > > > and interactivity (CMUCL can do it, why not O'Caml?)
> > >
> > > Let's see. We have following obstacles:
> > > a) Ocaml relies on external tools to generate native code (assembler,
> > >    linker)
> >
> > It could call those external tools. Why not?
>
> Because you have to have them installed in order to use it, as well as
> the ocamlopt compilers also.

I have them installed.

> > > b) Ocaml has no way to dynamically load .cmx or .cmxa
> >
> > I don't know about other platforms, but Solaris and Linux have dlopen,
> > dlsym and dlclose. Couldn't it use those?
> >
> > > And here is a real show stoper - no way to pick suitable name for the
> > > executable, i mean, ocaml - toplevel, ocamlc - compiler, ocamlopt -
> > > "optimizing" compiler. Quite simply, there is no space for such a
> > > beast.
> >
> > I would readily give up bytecode for native code. Alternatively, I would
>
> Until you begin working on linux/hppa or linux/s390 for example, which has
> no native code compiler.

Why should a hypothetical possibility of working on an obscure system make me 
suffer now that I'm using Linux/x86?

So they don't have ocamlopt either. Does this mean I must not use it?

Oleg
-------------------
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