Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Executable size?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-11-15 (15:01)
From: John J Lee <jjl@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size?
On Sat, 16 Nov 2003, skaller wrote:
> A very large number of people do in fact build C all the
> time without any runtime library at all: embedded systems
> typically don't use any runtime.

When you say "runtime", do you mean stuff like, or libgcc.a, or

When, if ever, can you avoid linking with libgcc.a (or its equivalent)?
What do you lose by not linking with it?

I don't ask for any practical reason, just to try and sort out how O'Caml,
C and C++ differ here.

> You can also do this for C++, even g++ can do it I think
> by turning off support for features that require run
> time support such as exception handling.
> Ocaml on the other hand cannot function at all without the gc.


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: