[Caml-list] HOL Light on ocamlnat

2009-07-30 Thread kcheung
I am pleased to announce that experiments on loading HOL Light in ocamlnat have been successful. A 4x to 10x speedup on various computations has been observed. A preliminary how-to guide is available at: http://www.math.carleton.ca/~kcheung/holnat.html Kevin Cheung

Re: [Caml-list] ocamlgraph predecessors

2009-08-10 Thread kcheung
Perhaps something like that in ConcreteBidirectional be implemented for general Digraph so predecessors can be accessed in O(1)? If I am not mistaken, that will double the storage and running time of most of the operations. This implementation could be added as an additional variant without modif

Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures

2009-09-24 Thread kcheung
> On Thursday 24 September 2009 01:01:58 you wrote: > No problem. I'll be happy to get anything working! > > Following your advice, it seems to work perfectly now: I'm not too familiar with concurrency in ocaml. How does OC4MC compare with JoCaml? > > $ ./matmul.th 500 1 > Temp de calcul: utime

Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures

2009-09-25 Thread kcheung
> On Friday 25 September 2009 08:32:26 Hugo Ferreira wrote: >> Put it another way; if parallel/concurrent programming could be >> easily used with a minimum of effort then I believe "most people" >> would use it simply because it is available. > > Once your run-time supports it, you just need a lib

Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures

2009-09-25 Thread kcheung
> I will add that we did not made this experiment to beat F# or python's > hashtables, so I will not comment on that here. The point about > performance is that it should be *predictable*. Perhaps an off-topic and naive question: What does it take to beat F# and still have predictable performance?

Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures

2009-09-26 Thread kcheung
> On Saturday 26 September 2009 01:45:50 kche...@math.carleton.ca wrote: >> Perhaps an off-topic and naive question: What does it take to beat F# >> and >> still have predictable performance? > > Provided you're talking abouts today's machines and don't care about pause > times, HLVM with a paralle

Re: [Caml-list] JIT & HLVM, LLVM

2009-09-27 Thread kcheung
>> I think >> that an OCaml-like language that addresses OCaml's performance >> (including >> parallelism) and FFI issues would be much more widely useful and is an >> entirely achievable goal. >> > I'm not as committed to abandoning OCaml as you seem, and have hope for > incremental improvement of