From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3NHiYtq013081 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:44:34 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq8BAIAPs03UnwdkkGdsb2JhbAClZxQBAQEBCQkNBxQEIcIJhXYEkj0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,259,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="81593192" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 23 Apr 2011 19:44:29 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIAPs01UXebj/2dsb2JhbAClZ3fCCYV2BJI9 Received: from outmx01.plus.net ([84.93.230.227]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2011 18:44:28 +0100 Received: from [80.229.123.248] (helo=WinEight) by outmx01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1QDgse-0003mw-2v; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:44:28 +0100 From: "Jon Harrop" To: "'Philippe Strauss'" Cc: References: <2054357367.219171.1300974318806.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8BD02D.1010505@inria.fr> <4D8C73C8.6020801@inescporto.pt> <1301055903.8429.314.camel@thinkpad> <341494683.237537.1301057887481.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8C944A.9060601@inria.fr> <4D8CB859.9040709@inescporto.pt> <4D8CDDCC.4010000@ens-lyon.org> <029701cbff90$7a874510$6f95cf30$@ffconsultancy.com> <76544177.594058.1303341821437.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4DAFE141.7080003@inria.fr> <92C4117E-BEDE-4F60-8747-F3BA48A5034A@philou.ch> In-Reply-To: <92C4117E-BEDE-4F60-8747-F3BA48A5034A@philou.ch> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:44:00 +0100 Message-ID: <00bc01cc01de$083f37b0$18bda710$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFhMASujb2QG2h3N2h7/lJjoQ23OAIYQRkZAge6bucBi7oV8gIGVE8/AmcCvngCudDnUAFa0vZTAUOS6jwBrZhQPwGysqgJAVQu3QYCHuHUT5SPNLjQ Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Efficient OCaml multicore -- roadmap? Phillipe wrote: > Fabrice wrote: > > You think the programmers in the world that are only interested in > > floating-point intensive computations, with fine-grain concurrency, > > are a huge majority. I think they are not so many. Can we do a better > > job of quantifying this ? > > me! > > for audio DSP. This is exactly the kind of application I had in mind when I was developing HLVM. Assuming OCaml doesn't get good support for parallelism, perhaps the next best solution is to quote code in your OCaml source that will then be compiled using LLVM down to efficient machine code for execution? This looks like the most viable approach to me, not just because it would satisfy your requirements but also because it would separate concerns between a core OCaml language optimized for Coq and the run-time code gen library that can be optimized completely independently for scientific computing. Therefore, the OCaml team at INRIA can continue to develop OCaml independently and the scientists that want this can fund development in their own preferred direction. Everyone wins... Cheers, Jon.