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 q2EDJDo7009229 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:19:14 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcCAJqaYE/RVdy2mGdsb2JhbABDhTqwaAgiAQEBAQEICQ0HFCeCCQEBAQMBEgIPHQE5AwELAQUDAgsPAiYCAiEBEgEFARwZIodjBZ5KCotEgz2FNIkzAQULgSSIG4QSggyBFgSVVod7gzODGz2BV4Iy X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,583,1325458800"; d="scan'208";a="136032875" Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 14 Mar 2012 14:19:08 +0100 Received: by vcmm1 with SMTP id m1so3710226vcm.27 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=t4EOgRIHeg7M83pe7iOjWpxkAjGqUH7FZUvTfdv6AeU=; b=TfslwZKA2RFYcwXA9K72wL9uzAwNJmqtWub9TTE/fO1/lCe/NMschnETdXLFHr+fUf Uz3xvF/tDcm5hTxQoGc2y2YieUcB956OkqrshsCXHzKB4HBGbXri9ph3UUlZkxzZKVs4 kCP8hLr5+N39loJC7yYwXcKdy40cBgxdbFfHPI/sT6G3xji/MsxcBol8ijYeqWU2jOgI hivjlOXTgFItFn6g/Cz1cfjKOfHaXqZJyrQBjG6YyjEnfOlmTdl4jL11ntKM31M4bO41 LircKywzjaJMib7P6PjxZZ7veuTm2M935lWnN/yFabJvx8FLsdWP/qAHRzIMWHI2q+UW Gszw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.38.102 with SMTP id f6mr1781551vdk.70.1331731147487; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: virgile.prevosto@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.71.227 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F609153.5040000@gmail.com> References: <4F607390.5040705@gmail.com> <4F609153.5040000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:19:07 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HNwtt8y4QAIlBuk5KERvOCqUr70 Message-ID: From: Virgile Prevosto To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id q2EDJDo7009229 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a question about "ocamlopt" and "ocamldep" 2012/3/14 Matej Košík <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com>: > 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). Scenario 1 is exactly what bytecode compilation is for, and it is indeed fast and without dependencies on .cmo. -- E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta Virgile