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=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59643BC37 for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 10:05:10 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjICANx4B0rRVcbskGdsb2JhbACWUT8BAQEBCQkMBxEDpXOBEY1dAQMBA4N7BQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,327,1238968800"; d="scan'208";a="25920651" Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.236]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 11 May 2009 10:05:09 +0200 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so1969892rvb.57 for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 01:05:08 -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:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JiJlvNdr5ryUluzidNn3YKDbaZCR7Hv/k+xY/B2zH/w=; b=AZ2c5leHV4XlIbH+JKoqGb3G5m0o+pYdW+WopQqA0x8pNvyJWOio7INDXGlaYHUtO0 cHuZwGCB8naPFmbaq8ov4O1sS895q7VOcAJI7o3nBspOMt3hs6+ei0IsyOmYFdEe5xQD ukmbuu3WRejJ0wo9OhNLaGce1Cmt6EOp2hNFg= 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 :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CSJcTWXPLOkRjnqeDSB6oIqVKefYQGB9a/JBBttFhDsMgN63aIVMb6g4oRoo4S1ZgI sHQJfcosL7Fcq+1Za2PX83s4CKRiCCk3Cl7VXJ+66+3Y1odNnlzolONVvJIvN9FF32td x4hXWNojgUy0PHEDXD5PhM2FF76MdZ1id74p4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.13.14 with SMTP id 14mr2845169wfm.153.1242029108316; Mon, 11 May 2009 01:05:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200905100450.27146.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <20090509100004.353ADBC5C@yquem.inria.fr> <87skjdwwps.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <5b0248170905091916p6c2d00dboda26117a3ce67dcc@mail.gmail.com> <200905100450.27146.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:05:08 +0400 Message-ID: <90823c940905110105p7ee28bd3vdeebfe9a508442fd@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocamlopt x86-32 and SSE2 From: Dmitry Bely To: Caml List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 unacceptable:01 ocaml:01 trivial:01 merging:01 10,:98 2009:98 2009:98 seo:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 rewrite:01 dmitry:01 dmitry:01 On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2009 03:16:49 Seo Sanghyeon wrote: >> 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/ > > If you want to avoid inconvenience, why not use LLVM to replace several of the > existing backends? I think it would be the major code rewrite (if ever possible). Merging SSE2 from amd64 into i386 code generator took about a day of my efforts. How much time LLVM integration would require? If it is that simple can you provide a proof-of-the-concept implementation? - Dmitry Bely