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
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-02-07 (10:57)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The boon of static type checking
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 23:34 -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:

> optimizations to it.  Of course, the more I look at SSA, the more it looks 
> like a functional language to me.  So, in effect, the GCC optimization 

While the single-assignment aspect of SSA could be considered
"functional", representing control flow using blocks and branches can't.

> Don't assume that inlining is optimization.  Actually, it generally isn't.  

Note that for OCaml, more aggressive inlining could be a significant
improvement, not because it would eliminate calls, but because it could
eliminate closures.  By more aggressive I mean more capable, not just
cranking up the -inline parameter.

Obviously this doesn't apply to C++.