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=2.1 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 72E29BC37 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:22:57 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnUCAFM8v0rRVdvfkGdsb2JhbACRTYh3PwEBAQEJCQwHEwOnc4E0jgABAwIFhBkF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,461,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="33638701" Received: from mail-ew0-f223.google.com ([209.85.219.223]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2009 19:22:57 +0200 Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so3741111ewy.26 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:22:56 -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=ijs4Va9u3b9M2mw0fw5KK3uVfAReBEe2z+17sinUO7s=; b=LJVGYSep+FUlDkZe9VjnMxIX3uZx6GNs64lSY3dQafKEIurjM4uEm0Lv55CKfE5uOa +G8/obIRdarIKfxyAaA4bEKx9z0sgEqjYWXWXfA45c7uSQn5HpX/Ne9T3n09nWh1qFFD kkFVYwTuLjiKTAgIhuLIUxXlhomXXs4hOaD/M= 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=x0z9Ooo8fabPPUcky74YI5mErtZPxiVUSJeYswmf0w48MMrvBkxDBk1vYbT1txLwE/ lmjssOH6G6bPtSTh4VnsOPCVKpfeuhTHfMvZGPObIFiR8Y+epSmp8jnkb2kJx500NP3Y ULuGcDTIYXfLaFyoEPa2mEK3IQUQ0gkKL1Ts8= Received: by 10.210.9.7 with SMTP id 7mr2776509ebi.5.1254072176357; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.11? (tui75-1-81-57-73-233.fbx.proxad.net [81.57.73.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm14135eyg.8.2009.09.27.10.22.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: From: Vincent Aravantinos To: David McClain In-Reply-To: <4E6F3027-5745-462D-AF10-30C868285D28@refined-audiometrics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] JIT & HLVM, LLVM Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:22:52 +0200 References: <4E6F3027-5745-462D-AF10-30C868285D28@refined-audiometrics.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Spam: no; 0.00; run-time:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 statically:01 byte-code:01 byte-code:01 statically:01 polymorphic:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 native:03 native:03 inheritance:03 dispatch:03 static:03 Hi, I think what Jon means is that, with JIT, polymorphic functions can be =20= specialized at run-time and allow optimizations that are not currently achieved by the Ocaml =20 native code compiler. V. Le 27 sept. 09 =E0 19:18, David McClain a =E9crit : > Ahh, I see from doing a bit more research that JIT does *not* run =20 > particularly faster than statically compiled code. But rather, it =20 > runs faster than interpreted byte-code. > > I remember many years ago speaking with David Robson, over lunch, =20 > about the upcoming changes in Smalltalk, using a form of JIT to =20 > improve performance of their method dispatch, and attempting to gain =20= > multiple inheritance in that manner for Smalltalk. But there, again, =20= > it is a case of attempting to improve on an interpreted byte-code, =20 > and not a case of improving over statically compiled native code. > > But with so many talented bodies working on LLVM, perhaps, in time, =20= > a way will be found to gain improvement over static native code. > > Dr. David McClain > dbm@refined-audiometrics.com