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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8B9BC57 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:16:52 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlABAAcj9UzLOwFpkWdsb2JhbACVAY4MFQEBAQEJCwoHEQMfxA2CE4M0BI4L X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,282,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="81012286" Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out5.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.105]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2010 01:16:04 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQFABci9UzLzuai/2dsb2JhbACVAY4MccQPghODNASOCw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,282,1288540800"; d="scan'208";a="211226553" Received: from unknown (HELO hendrix.mega-nerd.net) ([203.206.230.162]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out5.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2010 08:16:00 +0800 Received: from hendrix.mnn (hendrix.mnn [192.168.200.99]) by hendrix.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BBF1B106E7B for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:16:00 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:16:00 +1100 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT Message-Id: <20101201111600.1fca76d5.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: <0a8b01cb90da$da5e6240$8f1b26c0$@com> References: <3DCEA910-1382-47E5-876B-059178F8F82E@googlemail.com> <20101130124803.7952fca1@deb0> <0a8b01cb90da$da5e6240$8f1b26c0$@com> Reply-To: caml-list@inria.fr Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocamlopt:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 internals:03 erik:04 erik:04 comparison:05 differences:06 benchmarks:07 suspect:09 documented:10 Jon Harrop wrote: > Because benchmarks like my HLVM ones have proven that LLVM can generate > *much* faster code than ocamlopt does. Until ocamlopt has an LLVM backend that is not a fair comparison. I suspect that the speed differences between your HLVM and ocamlopt have very little to do with LLVM and are almost totally due to other factors. > LLVM is also much better documented than ocamlopt's internals. LLVM has well over 20 full time programmers working on it. The Ocaml compiler has how many? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/