From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Ant: Efficiency of let/and
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:21:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jwvirwmh7hg.fsf-monnier+inbox@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1127799169.31518.154.camel@rosella> (skaller@users.sourceforge.net's message of "Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:32:49 +1000")
>> If someone tries to use such things as `and' or
>> unspecified-argument-evaluation-order in the hopes that the compiler will
>> extract some imagined parallelism is simply deluding himself.
>> In some cases, the freedom to execute in any order does lead to better
>> code, but that code rarely if ever uses any kind of parallelism.
> This is not so at all. Limited Parallelism is indeed found in all
> modern processors, which can, for example, distribute multiple
> instructions on several pipelines, decode in parallel with
> computing values, or perform several integer and/or floating
> operations simultaneously.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Compilers can equally take
advantage of ILP with a `let' or with a specified evaluation order.
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-27 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-25 13:31 Brian Hurt
2005-09-25 14:47 ` [Caml-list] " Jon Harrop
2005-09-26 4:32 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 5:24 ` Fernando Alegre
2005-09-26 5:56 ` William Lovas
2005-09-26 7:17 ` Bill Wood
2005-09-26 20:59 ` Ant: " Martin Chabr
2005-09-26 13:22 ` Brian Hurt
2005-09-26 16:05 ` Ant: " Stefan Monnier
2005-09-26 16:30 ` [Caml-list] " Brian Hurt
2005-09-27 5:52 ` skaller
2005-09-27 13:06 ` Brian Hurt
2005-09-27 13:24 ` Alan Falloon
2005-09-27 15:24 ` Stefan Monnier
2005-09-27 16:11 ` Brian Hurt
2005-09-27 5:32 ` skaller
2005-09-27 15:21 ` Stefan Monnier [this message]
2005-09-26 17:04 ` Ant: [Caml-list] " Mackenzie Straight
2005-09-26 17:05 ` Marius Nita
2005-09-26 17:36 ` David McClain
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=jwvirwmh7hg.fsf-monnier+inbox@gnu.org \
--to=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).