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 nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF4ABB9A for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:24:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from qproxy.gmail.com (qproxy.gmail.com [72.14.204.205]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9LMODrG023944 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:24:13 +0200 Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z8so628751qbc for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Q7voI4PwFVWbe1Txooy9Gyb92ImUmrmtMCAKKevKBA4TIc+LDlLmeOc8yrR6SXARpsqwh/I1Aio1Avti//NYQjyXoabK7wOJ1X1hmkmWu/2BrQVmoNZwVUKFxZ/ThgeU9FmuzMzBJGVbOPwEfETV8pALO6Jjg2mRdov780/64do= Received: by 10.65.192.13 with SMTP id u13mr2338565qbp; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.35.7 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:24:10 +1300 From: Jonathan Roewen To: David MENTRE Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Bytecode Interpreter... Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <3d13dcfc0510210427g5ea98df7s@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d13dcfc0510210427g5ea98df7s@mail.gmail.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43596A8D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bytecode:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 optimise:01 ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 toplevel:01 toplevel:01 byterun:01 ...:98 wrote:01 slower:01 expression:01 native:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 I've noted on the computer language shootout that ocaml bytecode is slow compared to Java. I'm curious, are there any plans to optimise the shit out of the bytecode interpreter? I know it has been a goal to not be much more than 1.3x slower than C -- but this only covers ocamlopt/native code. Don't you think bytecode should have some endeavour to match or better some other language too (Java seems best case to me in this scenario). About the only thing the shootout proves is that ocaml bytecode has very good memory use compared to Java. On 10/22/05, David MENTRE wrote: > Hello, > > 2005/10/21, Jonathan Roewen : > > How does the toplevel differ from the bytecode interpreter? > > No difference. Toplevel expression are compiled as bytecode and then > executed by bytecode interpreter. > > > Am I right that bytecode just runs in a VM? > > Yes. > > > Also, is the VM written in OCaml itself? > > No, in C (see directory byterun/ in ocaml source code). > > Yours, > d. >