On 14/12/2011, Alain Frisch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/14/2011 02:37 PM, Adrien wrote: >> I don't think it would be possible to live without a C toolchain simply >> because we use C libraries all the time. > > It depends on who is "we". I can imagine that library developers still > need a C toolchain but release binary packages that don't.
True. I tend to see the whole toolchain as a single element that you don't split but it should be possible to only provide binutils. >> I'm quite interested in the ability to create .cmxs files without a C >> compiler and can already picture me using it. I've also noticed Benedikt's >> ocamlnat work. Would it be usable to script native-code applications? >> Maybe with less requirements? > > FWIW, LexiFi's application is distributed together with flexlink.exe and > ocamlopt.exe, and it can recompile and dynamically load user-defined > plugins without any other external tool. (Our clients don't need to > install anything else to write, compile and run native OCaml code.) > > Benedikt's work on ocamlnat also includes a similar direct code > generator as ours(to avoid the external assembler); I don't think it > comes with a COFF file emitter, though. But yes, ocamlnat can be used > to script native-code applications. OK, thanks. As I've stated, I'm really interested in this ability. I see them as complementary with ocamlnat making it possible to quickly do one-time scripts and experimentations while .cmxs files would be used for persistant plugins. I can't start using them right now but I think that I'll try them in a few months. Regards, Adrien Nader -- 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
