> Well, write the code as ONE function and do use lables. Sure, the C
> source will be huge for larger projects but then again you get the
> single source optimization bonus from gcc.
A realistic version of this approach indeed has been used, for
example, in Gambit-C Scheme and Stalin Scheme comp
You can use the bytecode compiler and interpreter on those
architectures. If you feel adventurous you can compile ocaml to java
or javascript and run wherever those languages run.
The hypothetical ocaml->c compiler would have to interact with the
garbage collector or use a different garbage collec
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 04:30:33PM +0200, Török Edwin wrote:
[...]
> Is binary compatibility with a specific version of ocamlopt necessary?
> I think that ocaml-llvm could detect the mismatch and print an error, like
> you get for an ABI mismatch.
>
> Sure it'd be nice to be able to try out ocaml
Mehdi Dogguy writes:
> On 12/09/2011 06:36 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
>>
>> Whether you call it a "fork" or a "distribution" doesn't matter.
>>
>
> It does, IMHO. Forking a project allows you to integrate more intrusive
> changes, and doesn't force you to stay compatible (in some way) with the
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> when discussion programming language matters, there is usually an
>> extraordinary amount of bike-shedding
>
>> I would love, for example, a kind of read-only mode where we hear
>> about the discuss
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> > Also the development of OCaml seems a bit opaque, we don't know where
> > the discutions of the core team happen. Maybe it is on c...@inria.fr but
> > it is not public. I think people are interested (i am) about technical
> > disc
o...@okmij.org writes:
> Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote:
>
>> Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or
>> architecture port would disappear...
>> Ocaml would have more than 30 target[1]
>> In my Opinion, trying to generate assembler is a bad idea because modern CPU
>>
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 06:57:58AM -, o...@okmij.org wrote:
>
> Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote:
>
> > Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or
> > architecture port would disappear...
> > Ocaml would have more than 30 target[1]
> > In my Opinion, trying to genera
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:18:58PM +0200, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 01:11 PM, Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote:
> > 2011/12/8 Benedikt Meurer
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem is IMHO that there is no one at INRIA caring about ARM. In an
> >> open model we would have maintainers for the ARM
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> Hm, I'm not sure. It's really easy to generate LLVM code for OCaml
> in general, the problem is getting things to interact with legacy
> OCaml code, with exception handling being one of the most important
> issue.
As Edwin said, I
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 04:15:15PM +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 10:59 AM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
> >I'd also like to advertise the book "Programmation Fonctionnelle, Générique
> >et
> >Objet" by Philippe Narbel that I found very good and which is probably more
> >up
==
Second Call for Papers
WST 2012
12th International Workshop on Termination
Feb 19 - 23, 2012, Obergurgl, Innsbruck
http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at
There is perfect syntax coloring in Codemap for OCaml :)
https://github.com/facebook/pfff/wiki/CodeMap
It even colorizes differently identifiers for functions, variables, types, etc.
On Dec 9, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Damien Doligez wrote:
> Dear OCaml users,
>
> I have implemented emacs-lisp code tha
On 12/09/2011 06:36 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
>
> Whether you call it a "fork" or a "distribution" doesn't matter.
>
It does, IMHO. Forking a project allows you to integrate more intrusive
changes, and doesn't force you to stay compatible (in some way) with the
original work. That's, in my unde
On Dec 9, 2011, at 18:00 , Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 03:24 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
>>
>> Right. I would like to place focus on discussing this point, as it
>> seems to be the root of the evil. It would be so easy to fix, IMHO,
>> and you don't need to give up control by the core t
On 12/09/2011 03:24 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
>
> Right. I would like to place focus on discussing this point, as it
> seems to be the root of the evil. It would be so easy to fix, IMHO,
> and you don't need to give up control by the core team. Why not
> accept a model similar to i.e. the NetB
*
TSD 2012 - PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT
*
Fifteenth International Conference on TEXT, SPEECH and DIALOGUE (TSD 2012)
Brno, Czech Republic, 3-7 Se
Dear OCaml users,
I have implemented emacs-lisp code that correctly recognizes all
comments and strings in OCaml code, and interfaced it with the
fontification features of Emacs. The code is committed in the
SVN repository, but if you want to try it before the next
release, I'm including it in at
On Dec 9, 2011, at 15:30 , Török Edwin wrote:
>> Just drop Colin a mail and ask him for the current patch (should be for 2.7
>> or 2.8, IIRC).
>
> FWIW 3.0 has some fixes in the OCaml bindings that may (or may not) be useful
> for you, like:
> findlib support, string_of_lltype not dieing on re
On 12/09/2011 04:05 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 13:37 , Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>
>>> You can follow the progress here: https://github.com/colinbenner/ocamlllvm
>>
>> - there are two different repos, ocamlllvm and ocaml-llvm (which has a
>> commit history that make it looks l
On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:37 , Jérémie Dimino wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 décembre 2011 à 11:11 +0900, Jacques Garrigue a écrit :
>> I do agree that the problem with ARM reflect some problem in the current
>> development
>> organization, but I don't think that you need to fork to solve it.
>> *(And note
On Dec 9, 2011, at 13:37 , Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> You can follow the progress here: https://github.com/colinbenner/ocamlllvm
>
> - there are two different repos, ocamlllvm and ocaml-llvm (which has a
> commit history that make it looks like it is where the real
> development happen); which on
> You can follow the progress here: https://github.com/colinbenner/ocamlllvm
Excellent!
Just a few questions:
- there are two different repos, ocamlllvm and ocaml-llvm (which has a
commit history that make it looks like it is where the real
development happen); which one should one follow? A wil
On 12/09/2011 12:50 PM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
Just for the record, c...@inria.fr also happens to be list where the
members of the Caml Consortium discuss their issues. There's potentially
private/sensitive information in there, and it's not always clear what
relates to the consortium member's
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:58 , Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> I find the idea of making ocamlopt a GCC (or
>> LLVM) frontend the most sensible and constructive one I've seen in these
>> discussions.
>
> I found back some of this links thanks to the excellent "OCaml Weekly
> News" summary:
> http://alan.
Just for the record, c...@inria.fr also happens to be list where the
members of the Caml Consortium discuss their issues. There's potentially
private/sensitive information in there, and it's not always clear what
relates to the consortium member's interests, and what is more about
language desi
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:03:30PM +0100, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> when discussion programming language matters, there is usually an
> extraordinary amount of bike-shedding
> I would love, for example, a kind of read-only mode where we hear
> about the discussion, without adding noise to it
Well
Gaétan Hains, Professor of Computer Science
Université Paris-Est & EXQIM SAS Paris
+33 (0)1 45 17 65 95 gaetan.ha...@u-pec.fr
Second International Workshop on
Security and Performance in Cloud Computing
(SPCLOUD 2012)
http://www.spcloud.org/
CALL FOR PAPERS
Part of
The International Conference
> Also the development of OCaml seems a bit opaque, we don't know where
> the discutions of the core team happen. Maybe it is on c...@inria.fr but
> it is not public. I think people are interested (i am) about technical
> discutions on the compiler.
Just a remark on that: I agree that it's frustra
On 12/09/2011 10:58 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Stéphane Glondu
> wrote:
>> However, one barrier is the licensing: QPL is incompatible with
>> almost any license (even QT does no longer use it!). Has it ever
>> been considered to switch the "public" license to e
Le vendredi 09 décembre 2011 à 11:11 +0900, Jacques Garrigue a écrit :
> I do agree that the problem with ARM reflect some problem in the current
> development
> organization, but I don't think that you need to fork to solve it.
> *(And note by the way that a real fork could be in contradiction wi
On Fri 09 Dec 2011 10:58:31 AM CET, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
I find the idea of making ocamlopt a GCC (or
LLVM) frontend the most sensible and constructive one I've seen in these
discussions.
Note that, besides Oleg excellent description of some issues, the idea
has already been discussed a few t
> I find the idea of making ocamlopt a GCC (or
> LLVM) frontend the most sensible and constructive one I've seen in these
> discussions.
Note that, besides Oleg excellent description of some issues, the idea
has already been discussed a few times before, here and on llvm-dev:
- http://lists.cs.uiu
> If think my hack is reasonable too, you just have to replace ocamlc and
> ocamlopt (if you already use ocaml 3.12.1) by the new compilers and it
> will work.
Indeed. It's just that in some cases (eg. you are no expert user
and/or use the ocaml binary packages of your distribution) the cost of
pa
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:47:40 -0500
Edgar Friendly wrote:
> It seems that anonymous access to the bugtracker is no longer available, is
> this accidental?
Yes, it was. It is fixed now.
Thanks for the report.
Regards,
Maxence
>
> E.
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Maxence Guesdon
> wrote:
35 matches
Mail list logo
