From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8850BBC57 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:32:59 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokEABvE9ExQDPIvgmdsb2JhbACUVoYrAYgRFQEBCwsIGgMfqWWaW4ITgzQEhFyJFQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,281,1288566000"; d="scan'208,217";a="68872584" Received: from smtp21.orange.fr ([80.12.242.47]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2010 18:32:59 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2108.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9542B1C0013B; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:32:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2108.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 81AA41C0016E; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:32:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.24.131.9] (out1-1601fw.corp.tfbnw.net [66.220.144.27]) by mwinf2108.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4279A1C0013B; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:32:57 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20101130173257272.4279A1C0013B@mwinf2108.orange.fr X-ME-User-Auth: padator@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--701436443 From: Yoann Padioleau In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:32:56 -0800 Cc: Benedikt Meurer , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Message-Id: References: <3DCEA910-1382-47E5-876B-059178F8F82E@googlemail.com> <20101130124803.7952fca1@deb0> To: bluestorm X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Spam: no; 0.00; low-level:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 ocamlopt:01 compiler:01 compilation:01 compiler:01 semantics:01 semantics:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 low-level:01 ocamlopt:01 compilation:01 beginner's:01 --Apple-Mail-1--701436443 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:01 AM, bluestorm wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Benedikt Meurer = wrote: > There would be several advantages in switching to LLVM for code = generation. The general idea is that if other people work on the = low-level stuff, it is less work for the OCaml implementors. >=20 [...] > LLVM is nice and trendy Yes, and it has to stop. I don't understand why there is so much hype = around LLVM. Why would you think something written in C++ would be far = better than the ocaml code we have in the ocamlopt compiler ? > (though it's a shame the GNU guys, partly due to their own mistakes, = are losing an important part of the FLOSS ecosystem to Apple...), but = I'm personally more interested in the more theoretical projects of = verified compilation toolchains, such as compcert ( = http://compcert.inria.fr/ ). It's unrealistic to hope to have a = completely verified ocaml-to-assembly compiler, as we would first need = formal semantics for the OCaml language itself, but it is the very point = : doing that kind of things forces you to have formal semantics, which = is very interesting in many respects. >=20 > Asking for a decent compiler was once the way to tell apart the = serious languages from the insane string-fiddling script languages, but = the line is blurred by the indecent amount of work injected in the = optimization of those insane languages. Formal semantics will = distinguish the gentlemen of the future. > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs --Apple-Mail-1--701436443 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Benedikt = Meurer <benedikt.meurer@googlemail.= com> wrote:
There would be several advantages in switching = to LLVM for code generation. The general idea is that if other people = work on the low-level stuff, it is less work for the OCaml = implementors.

[...]

LLVM is nice and = trendy

Yes, and it has to = stop. I don't understand why there is so much hype around LLVM. Why = would you think something written in C++ would be far better than the = ocaml code we have in the ocamlopt compiler = ?


(though it's a shame the GNU guys, partly = due to their own mistakes, are losing an important part of the FLOSS = ecosystem to Apple...), but I'm personally more interested in the more = theoretical projects of  verified compilation toolchains, such as = compcert ( http://compcert.inria.fr/ ). = It's unrealistic to hope to have a completely verified ocaml-to-assembly = compiler, as we would first need formal semantics for the OCaml language = itself, but it is the very point : doing that kind of things forces you = to have formal semantics, which is very interesting in many = respects.

Asking for a decent compiler was once the way to = tell apart the serious languages from the insane string-fiddling script = languages, but the line is blurred by the indecent amount of work = injected in the optimization of those insane languages. Formal semantics = will distinguish the gentlemen of the future.
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing = list. Subscription management:
http://y= quem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: = http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: = http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

= --Apple-Mail-1--701436443--