> :-( 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 <5764c029b688c1c0d24a2e97cd7...@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 > -- 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
