From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA22361; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:08:59 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22352 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:08:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slave-dog.naughtydog.com (naughtydog200.brandx.net [209.55.75.200]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id g6MJ8u121966 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:08:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:23:06 -0800 Received: from happydog (happy-dog.naughtydog.com [10.0.0.99]) by slave-dog.naughtydog.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17678; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Pal-Kristian Engstad" To: Cc: "Caml-List@Inria.Fr" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Caml productivity. Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:23:00 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3D3C51D3.969C678B@easystreet.com> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Yes, it is pretty hard - but the upside is that given a given architecture that you know well, you can sometimes optimize routines up to a factor of 400 of an already optimized (data and code optimization) routine. In fact, that I can do this is specifically why my company hires me... As a matter of fact, the ocaml programs I've written are all tools to aid me in the process of optimizing for the current architecture. I wouldn't ever dream of ocaml being able to do something similar, but it does strike me that it is possible to be able to put some low-level stuff into ocaml itself. Or perhaps I am mistaken? PKE. -----Original Message----- From: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr [mailto:owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr]On Behalf Of achrist@easystreet.com Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:41 AM Cc: Caml-List@Inria.Fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml productivity. Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote: > > ... I want to have the capability to make > the code even better. To do that, one needs to be able to make use of > the hardware, i.e. get down to the bare bones of your platform. > ... Isn't this fairly impossible for an applications programmer programming the popular modern computers? Don't these machines implement their features through low-level virtual machines? Re-order and rewrite instructions? Speculatively branch? Execute sequential instructions in parallel? Have hierarchical memory caches that they manage themselves, impervious to the desires of the programmer? Etc, etc, etc? Al ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners