From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDCABC29 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:53:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA6GrRSb000537 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:53:28 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA16078 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:53:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA6GrPRR000527 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:53:27 +0100 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.42 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQToZ-0003LT-QW; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:53:23 -0800 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 08:53:23 -0800 From: David Brown To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Aaron Bohannon , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] native code and ZINC machine Message-ID: <20041106165323.GA12633@old.davidb.org> References: <418B8D56.5010109@seas.upenn.edu> <20041106093748.GA26835@yquem.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041106093748.GA26835@yquem.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 418D0187.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 418D0185.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 curried:01 model:01 stack:01 model:01 compiler:01 arity:01 functions:01 native:02 native:02 parameters:02 parameters:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 10:37:48AM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote: > The ZINC / OCaml VM handling of curried function application (an > instance of the push-enter model) pretty much requires that parameters > are passed on a stack. For native code generation, it is much more > efficient to pass the first N parameters in processor registers. This > doesn't fit the ZINC model at all. Just out of curiosity, what model does the native compiler use when evaluating functions of unknown arity (List.map for example). Dave