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 DF261BBBC for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:55:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.192]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jAHMtd6Q024806 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:55:40 +0100 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so46294nzd for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TggHjtFv5T2s9Nv6rl4jtb0VZwnUhQAZJxXuckb3bte4S7s6GP9lcev7K1F418woPH/xYPsQCWMO8Ces1xTxtDl5KGtEHz/AVKOg2scCpFZmLMhULS5gAxMnijUuO/IkmXGCClP6wsz+M3/dExOKVNSpcaifI2yU2pRWyPf0HEw= Received: by 10.64.179.15 with SMTP id b15mr2667470qbf; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.10.5 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:55:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:55:39 +1300 From: Jonathan Roewen Subject: Re: [Caml-list] doing MMX through ocaml Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <9C9F3FAE-A9B5-4505-804C-AD8A136FFC5D@epfl.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051117214745.GA580@first.in-berlin.de> <9C9F3FAE-A9B5-4505-804C-AD8A136FFC5D@epfl.ch> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 437D0A6C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrappers:01 runtime:01 ocaml:01 simpler:01 typed:03 mmx:04 mmx:04 probably:05 execute:07 rather:07 machine:08 function:08 basically:08 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 Another option, that I'm curious what people might think of, that might alleviate some performance woes of multiple calls to much simpler MMX instruction wrappers: A runtime code generator, that's typed by ocaml. Basically, create a code block from multiple instructions, which is turned into machine code, then executed through a C function. You'd still get type safety, but performance should hopefully be a bit better. The idea is that you commonly execute a set of MMX instructions at a time, rather than single instructions. Ideas on whether this is a good design, and what would probably be the best way to do this are welcome =3D) Jonathan