Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
More registers in modern day CPUs
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Mike Hogan <MikeHogan62@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml on Sony PS3 (was Re: More registers in modern day CPUs)

I'll try to check out the details tonight, but I have to confess that I am a
newb's newb -- never compiled a line of open source in my life until about a
week-and-a-half ago.  

Offhand, I'm not sure about the version beyond the fact that it's "3.10"
(something?).  It is some labeled version (not the development trunk) and
I'm pretty sure that I built it as plain PPC and in byte-code interpreted
mode (i.e. there was no ocamlopt after the build). 

I did end up with an ocamlc.opt and actually copied ocamlc.opt to "ocamlopt"
in order to build Coq 8.1pl2 (there seems to be a problem w/ the builds in
Coq under the "opt=byte" option where it insists on using ocamlopt in some
cases, despite "opt=byte" option being asserted).

In light of your question, I'm hoping that I can manage to improve the
builds for the Cell BE w/o too much trouble (maybe by following the pattern
of some other architectures in the build?).  PPC native would be great,
ppc64 would be fantastic.

As an aside, Coqide seems to run proofs noticeably faster on my PS3 than on
my XP laptop (1.86GHz Centrino), even though the PS3 is built in
byte-interpreted mode (I'm presuming that Coq on Windows uses a native
build).  That was a nice surprise.

My larger goal is to try to use camlp4 as a way to generate highly parallel
Cell SPU code -- kind of modeled after CorePy's "synthetic programming"
idea.  Hopefully any lack of a native build for PS3 won't be a roadblock for
this.


Richard Jones-4 wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:32:34AM -0800, Mike Hogan wrote:
>> I have recently compiled OCaml 3.10 for the PS3 running Yellow Dog Linux. 
>> Seems to work fine, but I haven't tested it rigorously (and at this
>> point, I
>> wouldn't even know how to test it ... um ...what's the opposite of
>> "rigorously"? ... non-rigorously?)
> 
> Native compiler?  64 bits??  Which version of OCaml???
> 
> Rich.
> 
> -- 
> Richard Jones
> Red Hat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/More-registers-in-modern-day-CPUs-tf4389938.html#a13883899
Sent from the Caml Discuss2 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.