From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FFDBBC4 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:45:04 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0DALv8xEleZLA0mGdsb2JhbACJGYw4HAEBAQEBBgsMBxG9YYN+Bg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,401,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="24724462" Received: from mx38.mail.ru ([94.100.176.52]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2009 22:45:03 +0100 Received: from [89.252.10.6] (port=43690 helo=89.252.10.6.freenet.com.ua) by mx38.mail.ru with asmtp id 1Ll903-000Ork-00 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:45:03 +0300 From: Andrey Riabushenko To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Google summer of Code proposal Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:45:24 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20090321204943.E2ACCBBFA@yquem.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <20090321204943.E2ACCBBFA@yquem.inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903212345.25986.cdome@bk.ru> X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: Ok X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 assembler:02 suggestion:03 linker:07 probably:07 frontend:09 machine:09 opinion:13 but:14 use:16 code:17 code:17 U4:82 >This is probably a stupid suggestion but why not have OCaml directly =20 >generate machine code, without the use of assembler and linker? >Wouldn't this be easier than trying to couple OCaml with LLVM? That is exactly what I am thinking to do. In my opinion, it is least radi= =D1=81al=20 way and it is exactly what is needed to merge the LLVM frontend to the ocam= l=20 trunk. Ans it is exactly my goal.