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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F29BBC4 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:34:35 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtUGAG+4r0nUnwdjZGdsb2JhbACCHpJWGgkFBwcPBsMkhAgG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,308,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="36155143" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net ([212.159.7.99]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 20:34:15 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai8FALy3r0nUnw6T/2dsb2JhbACCHtY6hAgG Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.147]) by relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 19:34:15 +0000 Received: from [87.112.234.120] (helo=leper.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1LfJKg-0004Rv-Ke; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:34:15 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: yoann padioleau , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] stl? Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:39:39 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <91a2ba3e0903031340wcdc976cp52522eb35f7ccb73@mail.gmail.com> <200903050326.57931.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5001040.203359.1236234148184.JavaMail.www@wwinf2209> In-Reply-To: <5001040.203359.1236234148184.JavaMail.www@wwinf2209> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903051939.39661.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 3029664f050a2a060bb7843a248f0c2f X-Spam: no; 0.00; stl:01 higher-level:01 gcc:01 compilation:01 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 compile:01 caml-list:01 numerical:03 programming:03 guess:04 barrier:05 benchmarks:07 written:07 On Thursday 05 March 2009 06:22:28 yoann padioleau wrote: > Come on, can you stop all those stuff about LLVM. The guy works in a game > company with people knowing C/C++ for decades, with quite a lot of legacy > code I guess, and you arrive with your "hey you should use LLVM" that > almost nobody knows about. Then they should learn about it. LLVM is already capable of generating SSE instructions from higher-level code more effectively than GCC and, consequently, several of my benchmarks run 2-4x faster than GCC-compiled C. > Oh, and by the way, in which programming language is written LLVM ? :) Sure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build upon LLVM. > > It doesn't need to be a JIT and, actually, HLVM already supports both JIT > > and standalone compilation. > > So what you propose to his company is to switch from C++ to HLVM ? :) > Be serious. I suggest they consider using LLVM, most likely from their C++ to begin with. This is a low barrier to entry: they can just compile their C++ using llvm-gcc and write custom passes that perform the optimizations they want. That is ideal for applications that are willing to sacrifice numerical robustness for performance, for example. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e