From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6D7BC43 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:34:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9QHY7aY026034 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:34:07 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA13530 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:34:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9QHY48E026011; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:34:05 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp217-99.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.217.99]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QHY0OU069228; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:04:01 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Single-case union types as strong typedefs From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Jacques Carette Cc: Damien Doligez , "'caml users'" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098812039.2903.147.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 27 Oct 2004 03:34:00 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 417E8A8F.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 417E8A8C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 typedefs:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 compiler:01 link-time:01 compiler:01 compilation:01 compilations:01 glebe:01 061:98 nsw:01 jacques:01 snail:02 2037:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 01:05, Jacques Carette wrote: > I consider a linker to be an integral part of a compiler 'suite'. > I could not care less when a particular code > optimization is done. If it *has* to be done by the linker, then so be it. > I do not understand why link-time > optimizations seem to have been somehow less research-worthy > than other parts of the compiler. Why do we need separate compilation and linkage in the style of C on modern systems? Surely, we would like to have fast compilations, but why can't the compiler treat that as an automatic optimisation, rather than a user managed one? -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net