From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB9Lh8jv028880 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:43:08 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjACALqA4k7AbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDhDZQpXMiAQEWJgQhgXIBAQUMFw8BQQUQCQIJCQYCAiYCAhQYHRQTFId1pDORMBSBIIkoM2MEjTeHOJIp X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,328,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134780088" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 22:42:40 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de Received: from first (e178012209.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.12.209]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id pB9LgcMH012064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:42:38 +0100 Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F026A1540359; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:42:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:42:37 +0100 From: oliver To: =?utf-8?B?VMO2csO2aw==?= Edwin Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20111209214237.GB9346@siouxsie> References: <55531934-37A5-4CC5-AB67-20CE4CCE8269@googlemail.com> <4EE08955.30207@frisch.fr> <4EE0FF92.3020408@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4EE0FF92.3020408@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again) On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:18:58PM +0200, Török Edwin wrote: > On 12/08/2011 01:11 PM, Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote: > > 2011/12/8 Benedikt Meurer > > > >> > >> > >> > >> The problem is IMHO that there is no one at INRIA caring about ARM. In an > >> open model we would have maintainers for the ARM port(s). > >> > > Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or > > architecture port would disappear... > > Ocaml would have more than 30 target[1] > > In my Opinion, trying to generate assembler is a bad idea because modern > > CPU require a lot of work to generate good assembler. > > Only the GCC and LLVM team are big enough to be able to make a good job. > > > > In the Lisaac project, we were able to compete with C[2]. Lisaac is a > > compiler for a Smalltalk like language : the if/then/else is unknown to the > > compiler, it is defined in the true/false object. So it is a proof that a > > very high level language can reach C performance. Ocaml can do this, > > because the compiler is able to know a lot of type informations. > > The Lisaac compiler use strong flow analysis and, more importantly generate > > C code. To reach performance, Lisaac tailor C code to help GCC to generate > > very optimized code. > > Wouldn't it be more reliable to write a GCC OCaml frontend, or an LLVM OCaml frontend? [...] The LLVM issue already was discussed months or years ago. There also was a testlanguage implementation with some features of OCaml, performing good, but AFAIK it was far away from competing with OCaml in respect to what the language offered as features. (Performance alone is not enough.) Don't know if this project exists today. But my impression is, that this was one of many attempts that started with good ideas but did not come to a stage that could be interfaced with OCaml. One reason, why I'm sceptical on the many suggestions done on here on the list these days.... Ciao, Oliver