Benedikt wrote: > Nice. But it would be even better to avoid the dummy, in your example > > let x = u in > let y = v in > if b then x <- v; y <- u > > This does not only avoid the dummy, but would also allow lowering to > "cmovcc" instructions in the backend selector (atleast for x86-32/64).
FWIW, when you're using LLVM (as a library!) to generate equivalent code then you can just represent the tuples as structs (value types) and LLVM will take care of all of this for you. Again, it generates really efficient code with minimal effort. The latest example front-end for HLVM represents tuples as structs so it gets this for free. However, polymorphic recursion is *much* harder to implement with that design choice. Also, there is the question of when boxed vs unboxed tuples are more efficient. Cheers, Jon. _______________________________________________ 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
