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 QAA18010; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:48:19 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA17767 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:48:18 +0100 (MET)
Received: from epexch01.qlogic.org ([63.170.40.3])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0LFmGv00521;
	Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:48:17 +0100 (MET)
Received: from epmailtmp.qlogic.org ([10.20.33.254]) by epexch01.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);
	 Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:48:21 -0600
Received: from [10.20.33.146] ([10.20.33.146]) by epmailtmp.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
	 Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:48:21 -0600
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:57:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@qlogic.com>
X-X-Sender:  <brianh@eagle.ancor.com>
Reply-To: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@qlogic.com>
To: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>
cc: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>, <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Coyote Gulch test in Caml
In-Reply-To: <20030121105648.A5543@pauillac.inria.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0301210955240.2036-100000@eagle.ancor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2003 15:48:21.0386 (UTC) FILETIME=[864CB6A0:01C2C164]
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Xavier Leroy wrote:

> Nickolay Semyonov-Kolchin asks:
> 
> > But then this brings up the issue of conformity vr.s performance.  For
> > example- the x86 has its 80-bit FP registers in 8087-legacy mode, but
> > 64-bit registers if you're using SSE2.  And PowerPC and PA-RISC both have
> > extended precision fused multiply-adds (that keep higher precision, i.e.
> > don't round, between the multiply and the adds).
> 
> > For that matter, could a 
> > "conforming" implementation of Ocaml use the 32-bit single precision SSE-1 
> > registers?
> 

I think these were me.  But thanks for answering them.

BTW, I'm willing to try out your code.  I'm writting some numerical code 
for Ocaml, and like all the optimization I can get :-).

Brian


-------------------
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