[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MirageOS-devel] sexplib v0.9.0 breakage of MirageOS unikernels (xen & solo5)

On 23/03/2017 14:30, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> We could also ask the Sexplib maintainers if the Base dependency is a
> hard one.  I'm CCing Jeremie Dimino -- is it possible to relax this for
> Sexplib so that it can be as dependency-free as previous versions are?

According to
the motivation behind base was to use it in sexplib.  I doubt they want
to revert this design decision.

> I don't think a hard Base dependency is practical right now -- we do
> need some time to evaluate it and to check how it interacts with LTO.
> It is promising since it uses module aliases throughout, but we haven't
> tested it at all in this regard.


From Jeremy on GitHub
-- no, I won't discuss on GitHub in random PRs (as explicitly written
there) - because nobody will be able to follow the discussion or read it
in aftermath)
> In any case the C code in Base is trivial, it is of the same nature as
the C code for the intXX modules for instance. So I assume they should
be no problem in doing the same thing as what was done for bin_prot.

While this may be true, it is another 5MB in binary size.  LTO was not
merged into 4.05.  We can discuss depending on base again once MirageOS
drops all non-LTO OCaml versions.

I agree with Daniel Buenzli (use https://github.com/dbuenzli/sexpm once
released, get rid of ppx converters -- which are usually more trouble
than problems they solve).


MirageOS-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.