Delivery-Date: 
Sender: info-hol-request@lal.cs.byu.edu
Errors-To: info-hol-request@lal.cs.byu.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: David Shepherd <des@inmos.co.uk>
Message-Id: <9685.9411031146@frogland.inmos.co.uk>
Subject: Re: bhogan@bedlam: HOL90 on a PC (fwd)
To: info-hol@cs.uidaho.edu (info-hol mailing list)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 11:46:56 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1508

Jim Grundy has said:
> I wrote:
> > > Performance wise, HOL2.02 is definitely faster than HOL90, but both are
> > > acceptable.
> 
> Karim wrote:
> > It would be interesting to know the hardware configuration of your PC.
> 
> Its a 486DX2-66 with 20Mb of RAM and 2.5Mb of disk cache.  It started life
> with 16Mb of RAM and 0.5Mb of disk cache, and I've been adding more memory
> in an attempt to increase performance, so far with out making very much
> difference.
> 
> When I said the performance as acceptable, I should state that I am also
> a patient fellow.  I think HOL90 is quite allright for such things except when
> you are building HOL90 or loading a library, or doing an exportML, these
> are the things that throw my machine into a thrash frenzy.  Most of the other
> stuff is just me typing simple commands at it, and it evaluating them. I can't
> type in that much stuff in one go, so it can only thrash so much.  I would
> like to see a Linux SML port with the garbage flushing that des described,
> it could be a big help.

If anyone wants to try to hack this in then you can find the OS/2 port
at att ... ftp://reseach.att.com/dist/ml/93.os2b.src.zip and look for
the OS2 #ifdefs in the runtime code.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 638
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		"I  am  not  a  nut      ---      I  am  a  human  being."