English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Yet another sudoku solver (838 bytes)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-11-19 (20:50)
From: Jonathan Roewen <jonathan.roewen@g...>
Subject: Re: Yet another OCaml Webserver?! (was: Re: [Caml-list] Yet another sudoku solver (838 bytes))
> > Why using bytecode?
> Because it's an OS .. dynamic loading is mandatory.

This is indeed the reason =) Asmdynlink I read was slower than the
bytecode interpreter itself; another reason not to use ocamlopt.

>> But: if the kernel is less used and the main time the
>> program is in usermode (not kernel mode), then the
>> speed of the kernel is not sooooo much a big problem.

Apps are dynlink'd into the kernel. There is no user-space. No
syscalls -- use direct function calls. Dynlink will ensure
apps/drivers only access necessary modules.

>> well... IMHO graphic card drivers is not ideally done
>> in OCaml, and not in C... at least certain parts would
>> necessaryly be coded in Assembler...

Generally, drivers only need port IO and/or memory IO. Port IO is easy
(and is already done ... though resource allocation isn't), and Memory
IO could probably be done with the Bigarray module (PCI bus knows what
the range is).