Re: [Caml-list] Virtual dependencies in ocamlbuild

2009-01-24 Thread Nicolas Pouillard
Excerpts from Stéphane Glondu's message of Sat Jan 24 19:27:08 +0100 2009:
 Hi all,
 
 Is there any way to add a dependency to a .cma file without adding it to
 the linking command?
 
 It seems that dep from the API also adds the dependency for linking:
 for example, if that dependency is a stamp file, that stamp file is
 stupidly added to ocamlc -a command, making it fail.

You can avoid linking by adding the dont_link_with tag, to your dep
declaration.

Best regards,

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard

___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs


[Caml-list] camlp4 compilation model

2009-01-24 Thread Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
Hi,

I've put camlp4 on the backburner, but I think it is useful to know it
a bit better, especially because several libraries are using it.

a) I understand you can write a cryptic ocaml program that effectively
builds and AST from whatever grammar you decide by applying camlp4.
b) I also understand that camlp4 it has a built in ocaml syntax that
you can extend, and therefore use as camlp4 as a prepreprocessor to
the ocaml compiler as part of the build process.

In a) it makes sense that a library can embed (link with) camlp4 logic
to parse strings without the enduser needing to refer to camlp4 in the
build process.

In b) you would normally require the user to apply the preprocessor to
the source code as part of the build process.

But know my question:

It seems that an enduser program can link with a camlp4 enhanced
library and magically have its syntax extended without adding camlp4
to the build process (once the library has been built). For example
the bitstring library introduces the bitmatch syntax.

Is this correct understood, and how does that work?

One reason I put camlp4 on hold was precisely that added compilation
complexity, but if it can be hidden in a library, it is an entirely
different situation.


Regards,
Mikkel

___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs


[Caml-list] JIT compilation of OCaml's bytecode

2009-01-24 Thread Jon Harrop

AFAIK, OCaml's bytecode is typeless. How hard would it be to infer types from 
the bytecode in order to create type-specific functions during JIT 
compilation?

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs