Re: [Caml-list] compiler bug?

[skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>]

On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 13:34 -0400, Jacques Carette wrote:

> It is my impression that users of compilers are "ready" for the 
> following situation:
> 1) an optimizing compiler (like ocamlopt!) that produces good code 
> efficiently
> 2) a super-optimizing compiler that produces fantastic code, at whatever 
> cost.
> 
> Such a compiler would probably rapidly find a niche of fervent users. 

What about high level optimisations?

Felix supports this:

	reduce revrev[t] (x:list[t]): rev (rev x) => x;

which, combined with inlining, removes adjacent list reversals.
This is a fairly trivial example of integrating logic with
programming as a way of achieving both correctness and
performance: the reduction above provides both semantic
knowledge to the reader as well as allowing the compiler
to generate better code.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net