On Thursday 05 March 2009 06:22:28 yoann padioleau wrote: > Come on, can you stop all those stuff about LLVM. The guy works in a game > company with people knowing C/C++ for decades, with quite a lot of legacy > code I guess, and you arrive with your "hey you should use LLVM" that > almost nobody knows about.
Then they should learn about it. LLVM is already capable of generating SSE instructions from higher-level code more effectively than GCC and, consequently, several of my benchmarks run 2-4x faster than GCC-compiled C. > Oh, and by the way, in which programming language is written LLVM ? :) Sure. That doesn't mean we shouldn't build upon LLVM. > > It doesn't need to be a JIT and, actually, HLVM already supports both JIT > > and standalone compilation. > > So what you propose to his company is to switch from C++ to HLVM ? :) > Be serious. I suggest they consider using LLVM, most likely from their C++ to begin with. This is a low barrier to entry: they can just compile their C++ using llvm-gcc and write custom passes that perform the optimizations they want. That is ideal for applications that are willing to sacrifice numerical robustness for performance, for example. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
