Browse thread
OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: ocamlopt LLVM support (Was: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT) |
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 05:37:32PM +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote: > 1. You will have to rewrite not only the compiler, the standard > library and the bytecode interpreter (already a massive amount of > work), but you also loose compatibility with almost every existing > OCaml library binding, since the native function interface will be > different. That's a hell of a lot of work for many people. It might kick-start efforts to automatically generate bindings, at least to C code, which wouldn't be a bad thing. camlidl is clumsy and doesn't handle a very important case (pointers to handles) so it's not really useful for this. I do agree with the rest of your points though, and it's good to have intelligent discussion of the real issues at long last. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat