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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 207A6BC69 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:09:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail9.dslextreme.com (mail9.dslextreme.com [66.51.199.94]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l7H39oBV010850 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:09:51 +0200 Received: (qmail 14923 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2007 03:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dhcp-60-140.guest-wireless.pixar.com) (erickt@199.108.77.12) by mail9.dslextreme.com with (RC4-MD5 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:09:49 -0700 Message-ID: <46C51175.6000208@dslextreme.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:09:41 -0700 From: Erick Tryzelaar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: skaller Cc: Taras Glek , Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] JIT VM in OCaml: Impossible? References: <5C180944-2CD9-48FB-8802-8AF57972AD2C@gmail.com> <4DB2486A-4E68-4843-A02C-B058DB2CA28D@mac.com> <1187285851.6017.17.camel@rosella.wigram> <46C491E8.9010007@shaw.ca> <1187319000.29691.24.camel@rosella.wigram> In-Reply-To: <1187319000.29691.24.camel@rosella.wigram> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46C5117E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 bytecode:01 compiler:01 caching:01 runtime:01 wrote:01 binaries:01 compile:01 compiles:01 caml-list:01 argument:02 python:03 optimization:03 optimization:03 compiled:04 skaller wrote: > Don't forget: a program has to be compiled one way or the other. > Even Python is compiled to bytecode. The tool above (Felix) > is better than a JIT because it does whole program optimisation, > generates machine binaries. > > So I don't buy 'slow' as an argument: the technique is much > FASTER than any JIT system in all aspects, in fact it IS > a JIT compiler -- it just compiles the whole program all the > way from source with disk based caching which persists over > invocations. > For loose definitions of JIT :) It doesn't do runtime optimization of the code, of course. And to be fair, since whole program optimization needs to start roughly from scratch every time, you can have some ugly compile times.