From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C8DBC37 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:54:24 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEBAA/FPUvUnwdjjmdsb2JhbACbTAEBAQEJCwgJEQa2f4QxBA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,486,1257116400"; d="scan'208";a="53080813" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net ([212.159.7.99]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Jan 2010 18:54:23 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAMPFPUtUXeby/2dsb2JhbADTDIQxBA Received: from relay01.plus.net ([84.93.230.242]) by relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net with ESMTP; 01 Jan 2010 17:54:23 +0000 Received: from [87.114.35.173] (helo=leper.local) by relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NQlhe-0003Da-Pa; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:54:22 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml, llvm and generating code at runtime Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:08:48 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH References: <405ED4B9-9B3C-4BAA-9C79-C18BB8FDDB4D@gmail.com> <4B3E3343.2060809@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <4B3E3343.2060809@starynkevitch.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201001011908.48316.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 0b079fa72348f5a20e79d49e2bc8a197 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 runtime:01 basile:01 ocaml:01 metaocaml:01 metaocaml:01 frog:98 sml:01 sml:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 lisp:02 walid:02 seems:03 generated:05 On Friday 01 January 2010 17:39:15 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > LLVM is rumored to be a bit faster, but is also rumored to be slow as a > pure JIT (just in time) code generated (w.r.t. to other non Ocaml > implementations - eg SBCL or CLISP common lisp). Are you saying that LLVM's JIT is slow to generate code or that the code it generates runs slow? > Polyml http://polyml.org/ > is also supposed to be a JIT-ed SML implementation (it is SML not Ocaml). A > few years ago, metaocaml existed, but seems dead today. Walid said that MetaOCaml was going to relive back in August 2008: http://ocamlnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/metaprogramming-with-metaocaml.html?showComment=1217617620000#c4695232398067055037 > Happy new year to everyone! Happy New Year! -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e