From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q2ECcqDR007677
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:38:52 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmIPABWRYE/RVdY2imdsb2JhbABDgiAEaIIur2IBA4EDCCIBAQEKCQ0HEgYjggkBAQEEEgIPHQEbHAEBAwwGBQsNAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECARERAQUBHAYNAQcBAR6HaASeRAqLREyCcYUuP4h0AQULgSSJJmqEKYEWBJVWhWuBPocgPYQI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,583,1325458800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="136025104"
Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.214.54])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 14 Mar 2012 13:38:47 +0100
Received: by bkcjc3 with SMTP id jc3so2328592bkc.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=IA5svXVSC8SiX9rk/gS+5lGmx2D3BAmFSBIazKbqMNQ=;
        b=SDv5JgYOM0NTMdnW9IAzvYe9A8Nlo2+BtK+DnWacVixFBNmvii84zUeoYOiM+6kvsK
         DJ8pwWiru63PfYNeNh8E39Yj1SF3LnpGRkB2bvuWLCc4o1Dq8uTvxwnBESMhzrcngNL9
         NPnSZ3L2YTop6eT9VFDBvf3dzz+23kvesLK7oZgjDe9TkZy4K+zwu32SMGf7SaC6Aw0U
         j1vkOiX0siLf9KcJLlaBDozHaG07hOMGi+hBmLR5y57cLYYD1apwYvEZSuXDeR8m1zYo
         vy36CvzrfQmvM/QJsIzRqfptUovRi6hLxI5GdUpwowkO9+GYCi0gUX3do5y4qEd9zxqV
         w6Sw==
Received: by 10.204.141.10 with SMTP id k10mr945600bku.51.1331728725559;
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.27.6.206] ([213.106.240.92])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm7635091bkw.16.2012.03.14.05.38.43
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F609153.5040000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:38:43 +0000
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0ZWogS2/FocOtaw==?=
 <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>
CC: Caml List <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <4F607390.5040705@gmail.com> <CAPFanBG24dwykhjUegS-af7qQ+1HAaryxVYmvVkjoqrNhF+A5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBG24dwykhjUegS-af7qQ+1HAaryxVYmvVkjoqrNhF+A5g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a question about "ocamlopt" and "ocamldep"

On 03/14/2012 11:23 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> :-(
> 
> I don't understand. Why is it sad to have the *ability* to perform
> cross-module implementation-dependent optimizations (at the inevitable
> cost of locally damaging separate compilation) *if* you wish?

There are two scenarios when I use the compiler:

Scenario 1 (most frequent): when I want to incrementally remove typing
errors during development. Various optimizations do not matter here.
What matters is a short time to rebuild everything (that has to be rebuilt).

Scenario 2 (rare one): to produce the final product
where quality of various optimizations matter more than
the amount of required compilation time

If dropping dependencies of *.cmx files on other *.cmx files (rather
than on *.cmi files) requires manual intervention or careful thinking,
then ocamlopt, with this behavior, is not ideal tool for Scenario 1
(while still being perfectly suitable for Scenario 2).