From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645DEBC57 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:19:27 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUBAJX59ExKfVIukGdsb2JhbACWJoxgCBUBAQEBCQkMBxEDH6lti3wBBY4pAQSCE4M0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,281,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="90439940" Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2010 22:19:26 +0100 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34so10762wwb.3 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:19:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=/zldbPZeQJ15/rSU9km2iLXyf0/YtRGwlA0loTz2Suk=; b=JHm5/+QJjeJ8h8Yhf5yl2ZMZyAO06qXKOuXV5u1r8xJtndFjrfEmCUbfd7uFlZk+GZ U6Gl3setvzv/DvdFZAFUSzkHpaz7qi1FXMzQXkwAdypthP8wTBSujVyMuBRCkFy133um qHQIhzxXwmMeB3++TpoS1Pu0LEX3+JCPcagbo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:organization :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=mSl8yXJFexgyGG9e8qFlhwF6luSQVOQWXlzTKNCiuxNU061itv9//4MgOjEy5uBZgY FmVr2UFNiQq5KE20Tbz//CrAL398/7Kl8BAnH1LrrNkCkeS/m7FDwtVMMk7oOOe/cSku nk7C3Ke3fwEiX+YVIVWqxDDKK4AMxr1w2elBA= Received: by 10.216.78.143 with SMTP id g15mr4860677wee.31.1291151965922; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:19:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from WinEight ([87.113.160.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o43sm3246056weq.47.2010.11.30.13.19.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:19:25 -0800 (PST) From: Jon Harrop To: "'bluestorm'" , "'Benedikt Meurer'" Cc: References: <3DCEA910-1382-47E5-876B-059178F8F82E@googlemail.com> <20101130124803.7952fca1@deb0> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:19:01 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Message-ID: <0a7d01cb90d4$3871ce00$a9556a00$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuQsG+Hr/8+WjZFRkWGwNq3q1s18QAIy+Mg Content-Language: en-gb X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 cheers:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 native:03 optimization:03 optimization:03 optimized:04 intermediate:05 cases:08 quite:08 tied:08 Bluestorm wrote: > - more optimizations : the LLVM guys try to develop a wide range of optimization passes between > LLVM IR and native code, while ocamlopt is mostly a "non-optimising compiler". It's not clear > however how much gain we could have, as OCaml has already optimized = the most important parts, > and a big part of the performance concerns are outside the LLVM area = (data representation and > GC). Still, the experience of GHC-LLVM has been quite positive, with noticeable improvements > in some cases.=A0 Without a typeful intermediate representation of the program, LLVM's = hands would be tied when it comes to most optimization passes. You need to = convey as much type information as possible via the LLVM IR for LLVM's = optimization passes to be really effective. Cheers, Jon.