Rewatch: in-process bsc prototype

Comienza con la reimplementación de OCaml Rewatch de #8653 y rastrea cómo se invoca el ejecutable bsc para los pasos de análisis y compilación, incluidas las compilaciones de stdlib y de las pruebas. Documenta los artefactos y el estado compartido involucrados y, después, define un benchmark de prototipo secuencial y una recomendación concreta sobre a qué debería dirigirse una implementación posterior.

Based on the OCaml rewatch reimplementation from #8653, we can prototype integrating the compiler directly into the rewatch executable to avoid having to spawn a bsc binary for each compilation step.

@cristianoc fed the prompt below into Fable, and I fed the same one into Astra.

I'll post the responses we got as separate comments. These can serve as a basis for further discussion.

We are porting Rewatch to OCaml as a drop-in for the Rust version. Next I want to see whether in-process bsc is worth it: stop spawning a bsc process per module, and ideally stop writing cmj/cmt (and maybe cmi) to disk at all.

Do not implement yet. Think this through with me.

Context:

• A lot of build time is process creation and artifact I/O, not typechecking.
• Integration might be >2x. I want a dirty prototype that measures that, even if it is incorrect and single-threaded.
• The compiler has lots of global/shared mutable state (Clflags, Config.load_path, Env cache, Ident, Js_config, typechecker mutation, etc.). There are essentially no tests that reuse one compiler process across modules.
• Getting rid of global state is probably much easier than the Rewatch port, but only if we know what to reset/isolate.
• No multicore required for the prototype. Sequential in-process with no cm* writes may already be faster.
• A real compiler service / parallel-from-one-process comes later.

Please:

1. Survey how bsc is invoked today (parse vs compile), what it reads/writes (ast, cmi, cmj, cmt, js), and which globals would leak across compilations.
2. Propose the smallest prototype that can give a real speedup signal on stdlib + tests (or a real project). What can stay on disk? What must be in memory? What must be reset between modules?
3. Argue whether that prototype is the right next step, or whether something else is better (reset-and-reuse API, keep writing cmi only, compiler service still spawning-free but still on disk, etc.).
4. Explicitly list what is likely to go well, what is likely to go wrong, and how we would get fooled by a misleading benchmark.
5. Recommend a concrete goal we could later implement with /goal.