On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > I am not planning on porting MLton to any platform with less memory. > > PowerPC is the exception; lots of people use it and it can handle the RAM. > > I've already done hppa and sparc. amd64, ia64, and alpha need some 64bit > > cleanups, so I was planning on doing that after the easier 32bit ports. > > Maybe you want to get the other archs listed in N-F-U.
Or just not list them in the Architecture: i386, sparc, ... list? > > Well, I'm in contact with the developers of MLton, and they seem to think > > this is an inherent disadvantage of whole-program optimization. Their (valid > > imo) argument is that requiring a powerful build machine is better than > > requiring a powerful machine to run the resulting binary. > > Sure, but I wonder where to draw the line? Maybe next week another program > want to have 2G of RAM or 1 TB of disk space to build... ;) I don't think you can draw a line; the line is always moving. As computer get more powerful, so should the autobuilders. However, 320->512MB is not a big step. 1G is not necessary. I think there is always a tension between what a program needs and what it provides. I had hoped to show that for ppc, MLton is desirable. =) -- Wesley W. Terpstra
