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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CB5BBC4 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:43:12 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmUCAMXtxEnRVdulmGdsb2JhbACVLj8BAQEBAQgJDAcRrjSBB45BAQMBA4N7BoNN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,400,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="26042709" Received: from mail-ew0-f165.google.com ([209.85.219.165]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2009 21:43:12 +0100 Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so1243489ewy.27 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:43:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=ClOHV0Vmc0jIrBxz+EzSs+JSvNLkj/+PW/xi4FHBkZI=; b=pKgasuqU3MhhyXd7As2LlL3DC1UWt3Xqpul5DAqYiWAtZuPB1KM3m+Y8HHLygasqXk nsB7zOR6ga1HN/FmG5kbGcR/oN9JI7hYRybaBe0VCavfdJcJd7UK/Ksk3BVCCntH6weg LQrTB/tC2PO8qSfncuwo0jhUOxn2GVyiuLKPk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=HbO6CCKLo7y8ccLO5BKNzTFkUW1qgEkRA3E5uPh+ZpRAvC6eVwTFieyEZIcK7z0Q/m VykzYoaMoJWrUog5lnfyEt3loxRbGd059D/OzczPSDx65lU3qR9gAGnsN7UsyifRIE12 bFnFSOFM/tpPAckXxx8K/kIl+/MgxiiQnYxe0= Received: by 10.210.54.15 with SMTP id c15mr3978731eba.98.1237668191926; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.10.30.16? (61.Red-88-0-188.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [88.0.188.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm3793803eyf.32.2009.03.21.13.43.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Message-Id: <61A6655E-FD4E-45F8-AD7E-6050C2E0DDE5@gmail.com> From: Joel Reymont To: Jon Harrop In-Reply-To: <200903211338.32805.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Google summer of Code proposal Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:43:01 +0000 References: <200903211439.47107.cdome@bk.ru> <200903211338.32805.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Spam: no; 0.00; run-time:01 compiler:01 lacks:01 compilation:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 runtime:01 compilation:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 tuples:01 inefficient:02 lisp:02 assembler:02 floats:02 On Mar 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > . You will succumb to ocamlopt's current run-time representation > which is > objectively inefficient (e.g. boxing floats, tuples, records) and > was only > chosen because the compiler lacks capabilities that LLVM already > provides for > you (primarily JIT compilation). This is probably a stupid suggestion but why not have OCaml directly generate machine code, without the use of assembler and linker? Wouldn't this be easier than trying to couple OCaml with LLVM? Separately, it's sort of funny that LLVM and its users are going through all the trouble now, when Lisp and Forth have had runtime compilation for years and years. --- http://linkedin.com/in/joelreymont