On Dec 3, 2010, at 14:34 , Till Varoquaux wrote: > Thanks for the summary. > > You seem to think LLVM wouldn't actually buy us much in term of > optimisations. In my experience the current ocaml compiler is really > good when writing code fairly low level but discourages use of > combinator library, higher order functions, functors in performance > sensitive code (i.e. you have to do inlining, specialization, constant > propaagation etc... by hand). > > I was under the impression that some of LLVM passes could be a good > match for those problems. That is: micro benchmark code that is > written carefully with those constraints in mind wouldn't gain much > but some form of "origami" programming could be unfolded by the > compiler. Am I missing something obvious? (e.g. need for better side > effect analysis).
This would be possible, yes. And the usual special note: No, it doesn't work with floating point stuff (automagically). > Cheers, > Till Benedikt _______________________________________________ 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
