[LLVMdev] ML types in LLVM

Jon Harrop jon at ffconsultancy.com
Thu Jun 18 00:16:37 PDT 2009

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find
> >that
> >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway.
> >
> >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times
> >faster than OCaml when the GC is not the bottleneck:
> >
> >http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/performance-ocaml-vs-hlvm-beta-
> >04.html
> For numerical tasks and Array tasks but your graphs show for data
> manipulation for Lists LLVM is slower. I thnk you need further benchmarks,
> is this at all posible for you to do :)

The only benchmarks where HLVM does not thrash OCaml are GC intensive and that 
is solely because HLVM has a very naive and inefficient GC implementation 
(going via a hash table!). I assume Wesley intends to reuse MLton's existing 
GC which does not have these issues so I do not believe those results are 
relevant here. My point is simply that LLVM makes it easy to generate 
extremely performant x86 (and x64) code, IME.

However, I would very much like to continue benchmarking and improving HLVM. 
HLVM is currently on hold temporarily while we ship a new product but I'll 
get back to it ASAP. I would also very much like to implement a concurrent GC 
so Talin's recent news about Scarcity was very interesting to me.

Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list