From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B61FBC28 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:25:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA5EPX7S004702 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:25:33 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA31786 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:25:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from stag.seas.upenn.edu (stag.seas.upenn.edu [158.130.70.79]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA5EPVUg010906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:25:32 +0100 Received: from [158.130.38.71] (dhcp38-062.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.38.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by stag.seas.upenn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA5EPUWw018513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:25:30 -0500 Message-ID: <418B8D56.5010109@seas.upenn.edu> Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:25:26 -0500 From: Aaron Bohannon User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: native code and ZINC machine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 418B8D5D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 418B8D5B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; upenn:01 compiler:01 implements:01 bytecode:01 model:01 runtime:01 overlooking:01 pointers:01 native:02 native:02 dependent:02 impractical:03 perhaps:03 weak:04 somewhat:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: I was quite surprised, recently, when I found out that the native code compiler implements left-to-right evaulation, as opposed to the right-to-left evaulation of the bytecode. [NB: My question is not about trying to write code that is dependent on the order of arguments.] You see, I am quite familiar with the ZINC machine and the benefits of its design, and I thought that the design could be adapted in some way or another to the native code setting. I am interested in finding out what factors prevented this, or what made the ZINC machine execution model impractical in the native runtime. My knowledge of systems is perhaps somewhat weak, so maybe I am overlooking some obvious point. I have googled for papers and discussions, and poked around the obvious websites looking for answers, but I must have missed something. Any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated. Aaron Bohannon