* Re: Caml-list Digest, Vol 45, Issue 63
[not found] <20090321161035.9FA65BC1F@yquem.inria.fr>
@ 2009-03-21 22:04 ` Andrey Riabushenko
2009-03-23 0:06 ` [Caml-list] " Jon Harrop
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrey Riabushenko @ 2009-03-21 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
>The OCaml compilers remove type information in the early stages of
>compilation but LLVM is a typed assembler and needs that information to be
>conveyed all the way through to the back end.
>
>The OCaml compilers make no attempt to provide reusable intermediate
>representations.
It is problem that I will have to solve. Make sure that type info is passed.
>JIT is the single most important benefit of LLVM in the context of OCaml.
With
>JIT: You can instantiate polymorphic definitions for each combination of type
>parameters that they are used with, providing substantial performance
>mprovements.
>You can generate code that is optimized for the current machine.
>You can provide a performant top-level.
>Forgetting about JIT would certainly be a mistake.
Because I not going to JIT the ocaml source, I do not need neither LLVM
libraries nor its ocaml bindings. I am going to produce LLVM assembler
directly without introduction of new dependencies to the ocaml trunk (this is
really important for ocaml). If I JIT the code then it will become a whole
new project which we never be merged to the ocaml trunk. I do not want
>Collaboration with the existing HLVM effort would probably be far more
>productive.
Unfortunately, LLVM want ocaml LLVM front-end, they willl object against HLVM
front-end. Too bad...
Do authors of ocaml has something to say about the idea?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [Caml-list] Re: Caml-list Digest, Vol 45, Issue 63
2009-03-21 22:04 ` Caml-list Digest, Vol 45, Issue 63 Andrey Riabushenko
@ 2009-03-23 0:06 ` Jon Harrop
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jon Harrop @ 2009-03-23 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:04:48 Andrey Riabushenko wrote:
> >You can generate code that is optimized for the current machine.
> >You can provide a performant top-level.
> >Forgetting about JIT would certainly be a mistake.
>
> Because I not going to JIT the ocaml source, I do not need neither LLVM
> libraries nor its ocaml bindings. I am going to produce LLVM assembler
> directly without introduction of new dependencies to the ocaml trunk (this
> is really important for ocaml). If I JIT the code then it will become a
> whole new project which we never be merged to the ocaml trunk.
How will you generate stack maps for OCaml's GC without touching LLVM?
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-23 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20090321161035.9FA65BC1F@yquem.inria.fr>
2009-03-21 22:04 ` Caml-list Digest, Vol 45, Issue 63 Andrey Riabushenko
2009-03-23 0:06 ` [Caml-list] " Jon Harrop
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).