From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EA3BC88 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:11:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j18AB4vU019228 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:11:04 +0100 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 LAA14609 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:11:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from will.iki.fi (will.iki.fi [217.169.64.20]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j18AB3GL019224 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:11:03 +0100 Received: from acerf.exomi.com (fa-3-0-0.fw.exomi.com [217.169.64.99]) by will.iki.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BBDAD; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:11:03 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [Benchmark] NBody From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: "Will M. Farr" , "O'Caml Mailing List" , Christophe TROESTLER In-Reply-To: <1107855477.2555.95.camel@pelican.wigram> References: <20050207.195724.87945401.Christophe.Troestler@umh.ac.be> <1107826151.13571.199.camel@pelican.wigram> <80eb59bd970cd828d562f79e8eb565bf@mit.edu> <1107855477.2555.95.camel@pelican.wigram> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:10:59 +0200 Message-Id: <1107857459.654.29.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42089038.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42089037.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 mutable:01 arrays:01 mutable:01 arrays:01 pointers:01 unboxed:01 abstraction:01 floats:01 data:02 benchmark:02 types:02 shared:04 shared:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, skaller wrote: > But the types in your record are mutable, and so it can't > possibly work. > > In particular, given two arrays of a record type R containing > a mutable field M, the arrays MUST uses boxes or modifications > to M in a shared record wouldn't be shared. You're apparently talking about an array of records (which obviously contains pointers to the records), but the issue (I think) was the records themselves, which store floats unboxed if they contain nothing else. I'm not sure that the data set in this case is large enough that giving up abstraction and combining things into a single array would make a big difference. It's also not what the Java program being compared to did.