From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD32C7F30A for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:00:28 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=pra; client-ip=84.93.230.250; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of jon@ffconsultancy.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.93.230.250; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@avasout05.plus.net) identity=helo; client-ip=84.93.230.250; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="jon@ffconsultancy.com"; x-sender="postmaster@avasout05.plus.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar8CAGnaQFFUXeb6gWdsb2JhbABDiCOqLHqREIFZFg4BARYmKIIqAQEEAQgCGUsQBwEDAgkRBAEBAQICCRoDAgIZIwkBCQgCBAESCwUCh3ADCQoIsFiIcgOJZYEjjXEGgieBEwOOJYlQkmE X-IPAS-Result: Ar8CAGnaQFFUXeb6gWdsb2JhbABDiCOqLHqREIFZFg4BARYmKIIqAQEEAQgCGUsQBwEDAgkRBAEBAQICCRoDAgIZIwkBCQgCBAESCwUCh3ADCQoIsFiIcgOJZYEjjXEGgieBEwOOJYlQkmE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,838,1355094000"; d="scan'208";a="6002633" Received: from avasout05.plus.net ([84.93.230.250]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2013 21:00:28 +0100 Received: from XPS ([87.115.188.46]) by avasout05 with smtp id B80S1l00410W6AX0180TVh; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:00:28 +0000 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=dpoF/Sc4 c=1 sm=1 a=pYon0QjUe1aYl5m7EDk53g==:17 a=9NSLKdjcVD4A:10 a=Xub9RBUEA-sA:10 a=Kvk-SOs2Z7YA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=r2vSxAw-AAAA:8 a=cdQsuJNHsHMA:10 a=ZOzjf2MOAAAA:8 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=McahRL1-5gVJ4gVSYzgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=wQxx2gU8CuYA:10 a=pYon0QjUe1aYl5m7EDk53g==:117 X-AUTH: jdh302:2500 Reply-To: From: "Jon Harrop" To: "'oliver'" , References: <00ba01ce200c$d23f1910$76bd4b30$@ffconsultancy.com> <20130313182745.GC3814@siouxsie> In-Reply-To: <20130313182745.GC3814@siouxsie> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:00:27 -0000 Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Message-ID: <011001ce2025$691e3830$3b5aa890$@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGTusbNW31EwOb0tRgwTltM6UzJNgH7c2uXmQj1NZA= Content-Language: en-gb Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Case study in optimization: porting a compiler from OCaml to F# Oliver wrote: > What is missing, is the information, how many cores / processors the mach= ine > has, on which the F# code runs, and if the OCaml code runs on the same ma= chine. Benchmark measurements used for comparison between OCaml and F# were always= done on the same machine running Windows. I used two machines: * 2-core 1.67GHz Intel Atom N570 based netbook. * 8-core 2.0GHz Intel Xeon E5405 based workstation. The client verified the relative performance on their own machines. > What about Ocaml Byteocde vs. Nativecode? The performance comparison was done using native code. We did not benchmark= OCaml bytecode. > And what, if the re-designt program would be back-ported to OCaml? Only minor changes were made, no redesign. Some of those changes could be b= ack-ported to the OCaml but there is no motivation to do so. Cheers, Jon. -----Original Message----- From: caml-list-request@inria.fr [mailto:caml-list-request@inria.fr] On Beh= alf Of oliver Sent: 13 March 2013 18:28 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Case study in optimization: porting a compiler fro= m OCaml to F# Hello Jon, thanks for your report. Very interesting. On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 05:04:26PM -0000, Jon Harrop wrote: [...] > After demonstrating the correctness of the translation, my effort=20 > turned to trying to improve performance in an attempt to compete with=20 > the original OCaml code. I had believed that this could well prove to=20 > be prohibitively difficult or even impossible because symbolic code is OC= aml's main strength. > However, I have managed to make the F# around 8x faster than it was=20 > and, in particular, substantially faster than the original OCaml. [...] What is missing, is the information, how many cores / processors the machin= e has, on which the F# code runs, and if the OCaml code runs on the same ma= chine. What about Ocaml Byteocde vs. Nativecode? And what, if the re-designt program would be back-ported to OCaml? Ciao, Oliver -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs