From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pierre.weis@inria.fr>
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA4ABC88
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue,  8 Feb 2005 12:26:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j18BQgRJ002963
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:26:42 +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 MAA17122 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:26:41 +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 j18BQf3P030369;
	Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:26:41 +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 49D2F138;
	Tue,  8 Feb 2005 13:26:41 +0200 (EET)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [Benchmark] NBody
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@exomi.com>
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
Cc: Christophe TROESTLER <Christophe.Troestler@umh.ac.be>,
	"O'Caml Mailing List" <caml-list@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20050208104312.GA10035@yquem.inria.fr>
References: <20050207.195724.87945401.Christophe.Troestler@umh.ac.be>
	 <20050208104312.GA10035@yquem.inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:26:36 +0200
Message-Id: <1107861996.654.50.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4208A1F2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4208A1F1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 wrote:01 gcc:01 ocaml:01 gcc:01 stack:01 ocaml:01 unboxed:01 stack:01 allocations:01 aligned:01 aligned:01 binary:01 ...:98 variables:02 
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 11:43 +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:

> The best gcc output is faster than the best OCaml output by about 30%.
> Looking at the asm code, the main difference is that gcc keeps some
> float variables (dx, dy, dz, etc) in the floating-point stack while
> OCaml stores them (unboxed) to the stack.  Maybe the Java
> implementation you used manages to use the float stack.  Who knows.

An interesting question is whether Java aligns allocations and stack to
4-byte or 8-byte boundaries on x86.

A few years ago, when keeping the stack aligned for better floating
point performance was a new gcc feature, and only worked as long as it
was aligned initially (and consistently kept it misaligned if it
wasn't), I played around with a floating point intensive C program that
would exhibit an almost 40% difference in performance depending on what
the binary was called...