English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
OCamlJIT2 vs. OCamlJIT
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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 de Castro Lopo