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=2.8 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D078BBAF for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 04:16:51 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuEBAL/VBUpKfS4fkGdsb2JhbACWTz8BAQEBCQkMBxEDpHeBEY58AQMBA4N7BQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,322,1238968800"; d="scan'208";a="39696942" Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 May 2009 04:16:50 +0200 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so1301895ywe.3 for ; Sat, 09 May 2009 19:16:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bhnbhutqidNR4/iW4JS7MrVCOHTecHsAKmjfG7y4qiM=; b=L9LcLy01eF+filspt1Ufu2NDPwXSlqy2/k1bIORDjh3u6124TvHWbood19rV/AekJc 00RbJDTvvmHxAHKnRxCvAZo84uWmMSgVinEMBBAEC8EEQnKj6dtSL0R+idqEzMhP36DC 19ne3UakDOOAN/0PyGN0IqiDqDQ/nuhDppb1g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=q/eu3nImdhgPI/GWg91yyEAnGy89BO4RA0PvCd5eEdM5k59dV9GVL9KclKbtHjkaWG xIo70jhCqwToi838MSg/e/opsxsLDnOyyaJampUb0UgFFhJOoF8ONVlzT5olN/kzvqdP UjhqsEnOmTTaib1jXASq092WrkUczoG2k7fsE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.13.2 with SMTP id 2mr12878195anm.132.1241921809788; Sat, 09 May 2009 19:16:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87skjdwwps.fsf@frosties.localdomain> References: <20090509100004.353ADBC5C@yquem.inria.fr> <5EFD4D7AC6265F4D9D3A849CEA9219191AB1A4@LAXA.intra.cea.fr> <87skjdwwps.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 11:16:49 +0900 Message-ID: <5b0248170905091916p6c2d00dboda26117a3ce67dcc@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocamlopt x86-32 and SSE2 From: Seo Sanghyeon To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: CUOQ Pascal , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 unacceptable:01 ocaml:01 trivial:01 seo:98 2009:98 seo:98 caml-list:01 quite:08 maybe:10 but:14 difference:14 von:84 use:16 2009/5/10 Goswin von Brederlow : > Having ocaml require SSE2 is quite unacceptable for someone with a Via > C7 cpu (they don't have SSE2, right?) Is it really that much work for > ocaml to use option 3? Maybe not, but don't underestimate tiny inconveniences! Even if it is tiny more work to support x87, it could be a difference of doing it and not doing it. http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/ -- Seo Sanghyeon