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
Ocamlopt code generator question
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2009-05-05 (15:22)
From: David Allsopp <dra-news@m...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Re: Ocamlopt code generator question
Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> Maybe this point can be discussed. I think 3 ports for windows is a bit
> too much... I don't know Dimitry point of view, but maybe INRIA can
> just consider MSVC (or mingw). If this is a way to free INRIA resources,
> is a good option.

There are actually 4 Windows ports if you include MSVC64! I'm not sure at
this stage that it's possible to reduce the number - I think you'll find
that there are enough users on both sides with enough
hard/impossible-to-work-around requirements (probably to do with external
libraries) such that you'd never be able to decide between just MinGW or
just MSVC. The Cygwin port, although obviously requiring extra work and
support, is more like supporting a separate flavour of UNIX than a separate
Windows port, I think.

> I would like to say "go on", but SSE2 will limit OCaml to P4 on i386.
> In Debian, this is the "low limit" of our build daemon. I think it is
> quite dangerous not having the option of the older code generator...

+1 I've still got a few quite useable Pentium 3 machines knocking around...
it would seem a shame if a lack of compiler rather than OS support ever
caused them to be retired. That said, the power and noise will probably be
what retires them first...