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 356CABC57 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 02:34:15 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcBAJw09UxQDPJ9kWdsb2JhbACUUDGOIgEBAQEJCwoHEQMfw3iCE4M0BIRciRU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,282,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="81013772" Received: from smtp03.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr) ([80.12.242.125]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2010 02:34:15 +0100 Received: from [172.24.131.9] ([66.220.144.27]) by mwinf5d26 with ME id ddaD1f0050bh6DN03daDnk; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 02:34:14 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT From: Yoann Padioleau In-Reply-To: <20101201111600.1fca76d5.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:34:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <24F2D2CE-D7A9-4F60-8B12-08F4DFA48EE8@wanadoo.fr> References: <3DCEA910-1382-47E5-876B-059178F8F82E@googlemail.com> <20101130124803.7952fca1@deb0> <0a8b01cb90da$da5e6240$8f1b26c0$@com> <20101201111600.1fca76d5.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> To: caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 debugger:01 ocaml:01 ocamldebug:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 beginners:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 bin:01 On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >=20 > Jon Harrop wrote: >=20 >> Because benchmarks like my HLVM ones have proven that LLVM can = generate >> *much* faster code than ocamlopt does. >=20 > Until ocamlopt has an LLVM backend that is not a fair comparison. >=20 > I suspect that the speed differences between your HLVM and ocamlopt > have very little to do with LLVM and are almost totally due to=20 > other factors. >=20 >> LLVM is also much better documented than ocamlopt's internals. >=20 > LLVM has well over 20 full time programmers working on it. The > Ocaml compiler has how many? Microsoft has hundreds of developers working on C#, CIL, visual studio = (and its integrated debugger), etc and I still find ocaml and ocamldebug superior. >=20 > Erik > --=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Erik de Castro Lopo > http://www.mega-nerd.com/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs >=20