Yoann wrote:
> Yes, and it has to stop. I don't understand why there is so much hype
around LLVM. Why
> would you think something written in C++ would be far better than the
ocaml code we have
> in the ocamlopt compiler?

Because benchmarks like my HLVM ones have proven that LLVM can generate
*much* faster code than ocamlopt does.

For example, Fibonacci function over floats in HLVM with optimization passes
disabled and compilation time included in the measurement:

# let rec fib (x: float) : float =
    if x < 1.5 then x else fib(x - 1.0) + fib(x - 2.0);;
# fib 40.0;;
- : `Float = 1.02334e+08
Live: 0
2.48074s total; 0s suspend; 0s mark; 0s sweep

And ocamlopt without compilation time:

$ cat >fib.ml
let rec fib x = if x < 1.5 then x else fib(x -. 1.0) +. fib(x -. 2.0);;
fib 40.0;;
$ ocamlopt fib.ml -o fib
$ time ./fib

real    0m7.811s
user    0m7.808s
sys     0m0.000s

Note that HLVM's *REPL* is over 3x faster than ocamlopt-compiled OCaml.

I have microbenchmarks where LLVM generates code over 10x faster than
ocamlopt (specifically, floating point code on x86) and larger numerical
programs that also wipe the floor with OCaml.

LLVM is also much better documented than ocamlopt's internals.

Cheers,
Jon.