From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97611820A1
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Sat,  7 Sep 2013 13:34:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=209.85.212.178;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com";
  x-sender="5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com designates
  209.85.212.178 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=209.85.212.178;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com";
  x-sender="5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-wi0-f178.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.212.178;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-wi0-f178.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvUBAPQOK1LRVdSyjWdsb2JhbABbgh+EVL8cgSYWDgEBAQEHCwsJEgYkgiUBAQVAARscAgMMBgULDQkWDwkDAgECARERAQUBHBMIAodrAQMPBKRYjFGDBYN4ChknDWSIEQEFDI97FoQHA5d1hiyJUUGESQ
X-IPAS-Result: AvUBAPQOK1LRVdSyjWdsb2JhbABbgh+EVL8cgSYWDgEBAQEHCwsJEgYkgiUBAQVAARscAgMMBgULDQkWDwkDAgECARERAQUBHBMIAodrAQMPBKRYjFGDBYN4ChknDWSIEQEFDI97FoQHA5d1hiyJUUGESQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,859,1371074400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="26046670"
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 07 Sep 2013 13:34:35 +0200
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn9so1829849wib.11
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:34:34 -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:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=UVFnaw2I5GAcG3tHFuhUEr0LQ5oIbTvWXCNHxTnAHSs=;
        b=go4GccGeLb8ODwfPxP0VgZZQ3KhyAqnZ6+CTrMhhMEQ1Gt8BWF5G4WtaYE/DYHKayr
         q4SG/dFt7ZVEAlxIbB68WWocDpoQhuY3k2Ljn5lVrt1EjD6RPgoW8RhJ4SQyCAkNDBrn
         cCPYZ9muon/YoWT891byIki7nrFRt5nQY/b41J69tBKrr52AoC4xpuE7zCfnRPXcfsGx
         KglivjvtJhMSX0zUrvJQrVE0HCsEnzMcKGuSOrijVnzxaABthE8Zb3tumoV9t1QhDJpd
         oObllZCwB3wK2oips2cBgEpYxOxwoHr6nDC/BqxwPbOpCZEJowvxq99LRRgZmPBWKVfO
         8Q+Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.160.240 with SMTP id xn16mr1869024wib.62.1378553674609;
        Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.27.6.164] ([213.106.240.92])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm3029667wiy.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 07 Sep 2013 04:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <522B0FEB.1020001@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:37:15 +0100
From: Matej Kosik <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130827 Icedove/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <5229DEF9.7040706@inria.fr> <CAP_800p=kanKKtEj6jvpYzeXm-hnpakAyCOO3s-sCtETE_f=mg@mail.gmail.com> <5229F284.5050806@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <5229F284.5050806@inria.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Accelerating compilation

On 06/09/13 16:19, Romain Bardou wrote:
> 
> I considered doing that, but my project has some stubs which do not work
> in bytecode for some reason (probably fixable). Also, it would mean that
> I would have to compile both versions, as the program is too slow to be
> used in bytecode, so the bytecode would only be used for quick
> type-checking.

There is a crucial difference between "ocamlc" and "ocamlopt".

"ocamlc" is fine because the recompilation time typically depends only on the number of changed files
(these simply have to be recompiled and then the whole thing can be linked together).

"ocamlopt" is a terrible choice for iterative recompilation time
typically *depends on the size of the project*
(it is necessary to recompile all the changed files as well as all unmodified files that simply happen to be after the changed files in the linking list)

The difference is huge.