Re: [Caml-list] Closing the performance gap to C

[Alain Frisch <alain.frisch@lexifi.com>]

On 21/12/2016 17:56, Mark Shinwell wrote:
> I agree with Gabriel, but, we are planning substantial work within
> Flambda during the coming year to implement unboxing transformations
> therein.  I do think we should spend a little time, before diving into
> this particular issue, convincing ourselves that these two tracks of
> work are going to be complementary rather than conflicting.

Dealing with boxing/unboxing in flambda rather than keeping it at the 
cmm level certainly seems the way to go in the context of the flambda 
pipeline.  This will probably need to touch the definition of clambda 
(to bring it closer to cmm) and thus cmmgen.  Do you believe this is 
compatible with continuing sharing clambda and cmmgen between the 
flambda and non-flambda pipeline?  At some point, it might be more 
natural, or just required, to compile flambda directly to cmm without 
going through clambda.  What do you think?

If the flambda pipeline targets cmm directly without going through 
clambda/cmmgen, the approach discussed here (for the non-flambda case) 
should not interact too much with the flambda version.  As far as I can 
tell, they would mostly share the plumbing required to pass more info 
from typedtree to lambda.


Alain