Jon Harrop wrote:
> FWIW, I think natdynlink should be a core feature of OCaml going forwards 
> because it is useful in so many circumstances, not least the performant 
> top-level.

As you know, the current implementation of natdynlink relies on the 
dynamic library layer of the underlying OS. Some systems don't have 
dynamic libraries at all and some systems put strong constraints on what 
can be put in them (e.g. "no reference to undefined symbols" or 
"position-independent code"), which require changes to the ocamlopt 
backend or other hacks.

A nicer version of natdynlink (and of the native toplevel) could be 
obtained by basing it on an LLVM backend for ocamlopt. (And I'm sure the 
MetaOCaml guys would also love such a backend.)

-- Alain