From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA22705 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:54:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA05245 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:36:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fritz.traverse.net (oliverhome.cablezone.com [207.140.231.102]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17141 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:36:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from oliver by fritz.traverse.net with local (Exim 1.90 #1) for caml-list@inria.fr id 0zCovM-00006a-00; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:36:28 -0400 Subject: Re: VLIW & caml: how? To: caml-list@inria.fr Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher Oliver" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: weis Todd Lewis writes: > I've been reading that VLIW as implemented on the IA-64/Merced will post > problems for conventional compilers such as gcc which don't have a very > expansive view of the code they're compiling. How well will o'caml deal > with optimizing for this sort of architecture? Any thoughts? Well... since no one in the free software community knows much about Merced, and Intel is not talking, this chip isn't yet real as far as authors of compiler back ends for free languages. I think we should make sure Intel doesn't play Appendix H games again before wasting much time speculating on how any compiler handles optimization on this architecture. -- Christopher Oliver Traverse Internet Systems Coordinator 223 Grandview Pkwy, Suite 108 oliver@traverse.net Traverse City, Michigan, 49684 let magic f = fun x -> x and more_magic n f = fun x -> f ((n f) x);;