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

[Hannes Mehnert <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
https://github.com/janestreet/ppx_inline_test/issues/7#issuecomment-288691669
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.

Agreed.

From Jeremy on GitHub
(https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/pull/8793#issuecomment-288721643
-- 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).


hannes

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel