From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0982EBBAF for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 04:43:11 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtEGABTcBUrUnwdkcWdsb2JhbACCH5RvAQwKCQkPBrUQg34F X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,431,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="29013846" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 10 May 2009 04:43:10 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuIFAIvcBUrUnw6U/2dsb2JhbACCH8o/g34F Received: from fhw-relay07.plus.net ([212.159.14.148]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 10 May 2009 03:43:10 +0100 Received: from [87.112.229.53] (helo=leper.local) by fhw-relay07.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1M2z0N-000332-4S for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sun, 10 May 2009 03:43:07 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocamlopt x86-32 and SSE2 Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 04:50:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20090509100004.353ADBC5C@yquem.inria.fr> <87skjdwwps.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <5b0248170905091916p6c2d00dboda26117a3ce67dcc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5b0248170905091916p6c2d00dboda26117a3ce67dcc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905100450.27146.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 1437141bc5654a9e114b934f4c2050c0 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlopt:01 ocaml:01 unacceptable:01 ocaml:01 trivial:01 2009:98 seo:98 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 quite:08 maybe:10 ltd:87 replace:13 On Sunday 10 May 2009 03:16:49 Seo Sanghyeon wrote: > 2009/5/10 Goswin von Brederlow : > > Having ocaml require SSE2 is quite unacceptable for someone with a Via > > C7 cpu (they don't have SSE2, right?) Is it really that much work for > > ocaml to use option 3? > > Maybe not, but don't underestimate tiny inconveniences! Even if it is > tiny more work to support x87, it could be a difference of doing it and > not doing it. > http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/ If you want to avoid inconvenience, why not use LLVM to replace several of the existing backends? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e