Browse thread
OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2010-12-05 (22:42) |
From: | Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+ocaml@m...> |
Subject: | Re: ocamlopt LLVM support (Was: [Caml-list] OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT) |
Jon Harrop wrote: > My point was that HLVM's data representation is far more flexible than > ocamlopt's, Would you be able to list those differences for us? > In particular, I am saying that (from my own measurements) LLVM does not > cope with data representations like ocamlopt's at all well. Specifically, > when you box and cast away type information. Yes, thats obviously a mistake when generating typed assembly language like LLVM. > Ultimately, LLVM was built specifically to exploit a typed intermediate > representation whereas ocamlopt removes type information very early. That suggests that a first pass at adding an LLVM backend would be to extend the used of typed data representations through to the backend of the compiler. > And faster tuples, ints, chars, complex numbers, low-dimensional > vectors/matrices, hash tables and so on. More types (e.g. int16 and > float32). So specifically, you keep much more data in unboxed form? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/