On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Magnus Therning wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> [..] >>> >>> Dynamic linking doesn't solve all the problems, we still have the problem >>> that GHC does a lot of cross-module inlining, regardless of whether >>> dynamic >>> linking is used. However, I really would like to have a way to have >>> complete control over what is exposed across a package boundary. We need >>> this not just for licensing reasons, but also for making a dynamic >>> library >>> with a fixed ABI, so it can be upgraded later. >> >> I have a really hard time following this. Are you seriously saying >> that GHC is inlining code from modules _and_ link dynamically at the >> same time. That seems like a remarkably strange thing to do, or maybe >> I'm just missing something. > > That's exactly what would happen, if we shipped dynamic linking support with > GHC as it stands. It's just a linking mechanism, an alternative to static > linking, and has no impact on the amount or nature of inter-module > optimisation that GHC does.
Ah, now I understand. The object for GHC would be to reduce the system-wide use of memory rather than substitutability of DLLs then, right? Why would it be interesting to have sharable objects without substitutability? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
