On Saturday 28 February 2009 21:21:18 Richard Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 03:18:40PM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > You didn't let us in on how it really works. You said "high-level
> > virtual machine
> > built upon LLVM and written in OCaml". LLVM means too many things to be
> > able to d
On Saturday 28 February 2009 20:18:40 Kuba Ober wrote:
> You didn't let us in on how it really works. You said "high-level
> virtual machine
> built upon LLVM and written in OCaml". LLVM means too many things to be
> able to decipher what you mean, and your statement is too general.
I'm referring
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 03:18:40PM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> You didn't let us in on how it really works. You said "high-level
> virtual machine
> built upon LLVM and written in OCaml". LLVM means too many things to be
> able to decipher what you mean, and your statement is too general.
I'm stil
Excerpts from Guillaume Yziquel's message of Sat Feb 28 21:08:46 +0100 2009:
> Hello.
>
> A small comment on the ocamlbuild wiki, and more specifically on its
> plugin for ocamlfind:
>
> http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/Using_ocamlfind_with_ocamlbuild
>
> This plugin fails to generate .i
I am developing a high-level virtual machine built upon LLVM and
written in
OCaml that uses JIT compilation to execute OCaml-like code at break-
neck
speeds.
I just stumbled upon a weird performance result: compiling my VM
with ocamlc
and ocamlopt produces very different benchmark results fo
Hello.
A small comment on the ocamlbuild wiki, and more specifically on its
plugin for ocamlfind:
http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/Using_ocamlfind_with_ocamlbuild
This plugin fails to generate .inferred.mli files. The following lines
(thanks to bluestorm on #ocaml irc channel) are nee
I should add one more thing, which is, I do subscribe to the caml-list
email list, but lately I've been busy with other things and haven't
been reading it. Since this topic has come up obviously I plan on
starting reading it again, and also reviewing recent messages to
see if any others should be
Caml-list readers,
The quoted remarks appended below, sent out to Caml-list yesterday,
have just come to my attention. I'm not sure what Jason intended
with his post, but I thought I should respond to clear up possible
confusion or misimpressions. Earlier this week, a potential reviewer
contacte
On Friday 27 February 2009 21:34:35 Jon Harrop wrote:
> Oh dear. Then I am very sorry to tell you that Tim Rentsch's book is
> virtually identical to your own, having been tweaked just enough to evade
> copyright.
Actually the later chapters (about a third of the main text) are entirely
different
