From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA0E67EE4E for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:31:37 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=pra; client-ip=212.159.14.20; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=212.159.14.20; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@avasout08.plus.net) identity=helo; client-ip=212.159.14.20; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="postmaster@avasout08.plus.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikCAJPKfFLUnw4UnGdsb2JhbABahwa8H4EsFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIIlAQEEAQgCGVYFBwEDAgcCDgMEAQEDAiMDAgIZIwoJCAIEEwsFh2sKjnabXpJPgSmOPgcGgmWBRQOPHJ4k X-IPAS-Result: AikCAJPKfFLUnw4UnGdsb2JhbABahwa8H4EsFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIIlAQEEAQgCGVYFBwEDAgcCDgMEAQEDAiMDAgIZIwoJCAIEEwsFh2sKjnabXpJPgSmOPgcGgmWBRQOPHJ4k X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,659,1378850400"; d="scan'208";a="41713665" Received: from avasout08.plus.net ([212.159.14.20]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2013 12:31:37 +0100 Received: from XPS ([87.113.147.175]) by avasout08 with smtp id mzXb1m0033nHPDT01zXcFh; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:31:36 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OdqhUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=TICNVJQxr52ePB7IOjMYhw==:117 a=TICNVJQxr52ePB7IOjMYhw==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=dlN-Lro554sA:10 a=Xub9RBUEA-sA:10 a=Kvk-SOs2Z7YA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=r2vSxAw-AAAA:8 a=0zY9ZKiRTjIA:10 a=DG7kbHGEAAAA:8 a=lMtzNUFjKhvzzfPu2ZIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ve_hM_MYX0kA:10 a=d6ZO2ScF64gA:10 a=2gpU9L_e7dIA:10 X-AUTH: jdh302:2500 Reply-To: From: "Jon Harrop" To: "'Peter Zotov'" Cc: References: <010801cedc66$0425bcc0$0c713640$@ffconsultancy.com> <14f25a35d63f2b6ce6185d86dc66d2bd@whitequark.org> In-Reply-To: <14f25a35d63f2b6ce6185d86dc66d2bd@whitequark.org> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 11:31:36 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Message-ID: <012101cedc76$1665b920$43312b60$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGgoxwJKhkD3bR9IPQyJdy8fT65mAH+4tiRAjHDqEGaVh9ZAA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] LLVM OCaml bindings > I'm not going to change APIs in any way which needs nontrivial, significa= nt fixes to clients, there's simply no need. Ok, great. Jeff Meister was talking about writing more type safe bindings. I think tha= t would be fine as long as it wraps the existing less-safe bindings so peop= le can continue to use them. I tried using LLVM from Haskell and had a lot = of problems because they'd used every trick in the book to write the most t= ype safe possible bindings and it makes it much harder to learn and use. I'= d personally much rather see more complete bindings... BTW, what are your thoughts on MSJIT? I just started reading about it and i= t seems very underwhelming. Sounds like they're struggling to refactor thei= r C++ code so they're reinventing things but not doing it significantly bet= ter. So I don't think I'll be rushing to switch to MSJIT unless they actual= ly deprecate the old JIT. Cheers, Jon. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Zotov [mailto:whitequark@whitequark.org]=20 Sent: 08 November 2013 10:19 To: jon@ffconsultancy.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: [Caml-list] LLVM OCaml bindings Jon Harrop =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB 08.11.2013 13:36: > I just wanted to check: you're not breaking the existing bindings,=20 > right? Sorry, realized the previous letter was phrased ambiguously. I'm asking because I do want to break existing bindings. The changes would = mainly touch two areas: 1) Memory management. I want to get rid of most or all of dispose functions= and allow to use OCaml's GC. 2) Llvm_target interface is very outdated and it could be updated to integr= ate much better with the TargetMachine interface. There are also two or three Llvm functions which need minor changes. I'm not going to change APIs in any way which needs nontrivial, significant= fixes to clients, there's simply no need. --=20 WBR, Peter Zotov.