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 q2EBNsdR005319 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:23:54 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUDAA9/YE/RVdK2kWdsb2JhbABDhTqfEJFHCCIBAQEBCQkNBxIpggkBAQEEEgIPHQEbEgsBAwwGAwILDQICCR0CAiEBAREBBQEKEgYTEhCHaAueJQqLMkyCcYUyP4h0AQULgSSIFYYegRYElVaLLoMaPYQI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,583,1325458800"; d="scan'208";a="136013118" Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.210.182]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 14 Mar 2012 12:23:49 +0100 Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so3633833iah.27 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:23:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/l+nvbrwq7EcRAmKofcLdo17KI721YoEsWwEvUrWvYM=; b=hskME5RZ1ebm0H8daZKX4V63lFUsdhPnh90bTGFt9jC/WpT8PJ4ybqSmtwfG8V995y xF6hCzS7XKr3UbANmO9fVqDUi5f2SWKEvd/QdtVuRxGd4E2c6eNEpJf2mvA+o9XPp5as VkGqd+bJQmULv7J0xjbRBZGiSjcnkbyInO3+Nwd1kX+qmwJ1cHglzEBR5ANG9lQZqABg pLegfYcH8nak7mwk8f8KnVSdJDQ68GVhdx8K2xHhvTrSXH0xqpFX3yzcJZNUqodIT0ur ChhWqojO9tlXAHU/lTh8SfvglzxXVXP3XdAEW4YstNvkCHydwH7gwSCc/98NZgPBheUo JqkQ== Received: by 10.50.89.233 with SMTP id br9mr11168284igb.48.1331724227976; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:23:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.3.38 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:23:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F607390.5040705@gmail.com> References: <4F607390.5040705@gmail.com> From: Gabriel Scherer Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0ZWogS2/FocOtaw==?= <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com> Cc: Caml List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id q2EBNsdR005319 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] a question about "ocamlopt" and "ocamldep" > :-( 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? On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Matej Košík <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd764f@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/13/2012 06:34 PM, Matthias Puech wrote: >> This is consistent with how ocamlc/ocamlopt work: separate compilation >> is ensured the way you think by bytecode .cmo compilation: to build a >> module, you only need the *interfaces* of its dependencies, but it is >> unfortunately not ensured when compiling to native code, because of the >> global (inter-modules) optimizations performed (inlining AFAIK). Thus, >> to build a .cmx module, you need to be aware of the actual *code* of its >> dependencies. > > :-( > > -- > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs >