From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142CCBBAF for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:29:57 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AogGAHc1d0jUnw6DZWdsb2JhbACCOY9vEgIeA50E X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,346,1212357600"; d="scan'208";a="13042040" Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net ([212.159.14.131]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 Jul 2008 19:29:56 +0200 Received: from [90.192.139.241] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1KHMRQ-0002gW-0B for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:29:56 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] thousands of CPU cores Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:28:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200807111443.53853.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <48776844.3050708@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <48776844.3050708@starynkevitch.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807111828.34619.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 39028c0fd8d923d014e8b1b1291e7166 X-Spam: no; 0.00; basile:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 nativecode:01 ocaml:01 multithread:01 extensively:01 boehm:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 motivation:02 allocated:02 likely:08 break:08 On Friday 11 July 2008 15:03:48 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > As a case in point, I suggest an experiment (which unfortunately I don't > have the time or motivation to realize). Replace the current Ocaml GC > either in bytecode or in nativecode ocaml by Boehm's collector (which is > multithread compatible). Now that I come to think of it, doesn't OCaml extensively break Boehm's assumptions, e.g. that pointer-like values refer to the start of an allocated block? So Boehm is likely to not collect anything. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e