[MLton-devel] New release of MLton: call-graphs

[Joe Hurd]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Stephen Weeks wrote:

> This makes sense to me.  Here's my latest attempt to define an
> algorithm.
>
> [...]

This looks great to me.

> One other thing I'd like to point out is that I'm beginning to wonder
> about the necessity of -profile-split.

I don't really have an opinion on this, since I don't think I'd ever
need it but can see that others might. However, if you decide you
don't want to keep -profile-split, then I guess that means you only
need to keep track of combined ticks for each function while the
program is running, which may simplify another aspect of the profile
implementation.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Matthew Fluet wrote:

> I guess my only qualm is that we are using an implementation detail
> to try and capture an implementation independent fact [...]

Yes, that fact has always bothered me. I suppose the hope is that
mlton will always split the functions that the user wants it to (and
possibly lots of others too, but that doesn't matter). I suppose it
would be possible in principle to lower mlton's internal "split
threshold" when producing a profiled executable (but of course
there may be reasons why this wouldn't be desirable in practice).

Regards,

Joe




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
MLton-devel mailing list
MLton-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel