From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA29077; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:23:17 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA29768 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:23:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f54DNFD24529 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:23:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dylan (1Cust188.tnt2.tucson.az.da.uu.net [63.11.142.188]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24204 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002f01c0ecf9$d028a3b0$210148bf@dylan> From: "David McClain" To: Subject: [Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 06:25:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk ....well, I hate to say this... but I did recode the innermost loop in C and it now runs more than 5 times faster... Straight recoding into C bought 4x, and using better math brought that up to 5x. I think the big thing here is that the OCaml code was producing huge amounts of garbage, despite preallocated buffers with which all the processing was reading and writing data. The ancillary closures and tuple args were just eating my shirt... - DM ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr