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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501F7BBC4 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:36:10 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak8DACd9q0mBWB4BhWdsb2JhbACUcAEBAQoLChjAboQaBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,289,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="24929619" Received: from imag.imag.fr ([129.88.30.1]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2009 15:36:10 +0100 Received: from rubi.imag.fr (rubi.imag.fr [147.171.129.3]) by imag.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n22EVo0w029581 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:31:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.171.140.31] (diamante.imag.fr [147.171.140.31]) by rubi.imag.fr (8.11.7p2+Sun/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id n22Et8000213 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:55:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <49ABED07.30800@imag.fr> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:28:23 +0100 From: Florent Ouchet Reply-To: florent.ouchet@imag.fr Organization: Tima/VDS User-Agent: IceDove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Odd performance result with HLVM References: <200902280112.24115.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200902282152.18430.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200902282152.18430.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (imag.imag.fr [129.88.30.1]); Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:31:50 +0100 (CET) X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact MI2S MIM for more information X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-IMAG-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-IMAG-MailScanner-From: florent.ouchet@imag.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 compilation:01 run-time:01 compilation:01 polymorphism:01 polymorphic:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 tuples:01 parameter:02 imag:02 floats:02 native:03 compiled:04 size:95 Jon Harrop a écrit : > There are really two major advantages over the current ocamlopt design and > both stem from the use of JIT compilation: > > . Run-time types allow per-type functions like generic pretty printers and > comparison. > > . Monomorphisation during JIT compilation completely removes the performance > cost of polymorphism, e.g. floats, tuples and records are never boxed. Do you mean that each polymorphic function is compiled into a different native piece of code each time it is called with different parameter types? How does the JIT'ed code size compare to ocamlopt'ed code size? - Florent