On Mar 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:

> . You will succumb to ocamlopt's current run-time representation  
> which is
> objectively inefficient (e.g. boxing floats, tuples, records) and  
> was only
> chosen because the compiler lacks capabilities that LLVM already  
> provides for
> you (primarily JIT compilation).


This is probably a stupid suggestion but why not have OCaml directly  
generate machine code, without the use of assembler and linker?

Wouldn't this be easier than trying to couple OCaml with LLVM?

Separately, it's sort of funny that LLVM and its users are going  
through all the trouble now, when Lisp and Forth have had runtime  
compilation for years and years.

---
http://linkedin.com/in/joelreymont