[Haskell-cafe] Re: Hmm, what license to use?

[Magnus Therning]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Simon Marlow <simonmarhaskell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnus Therning wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Simon Marlow <simonmarhaskell at gmail.com>
>> 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