From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01501BC69 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4VCCqi7005410 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:54 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,598,1170595800"; d="scan'208";a="97192185" Received: from ppp9-14.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.9.14]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 31 May 2007 21:42:50 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics From: skaller To: Yuanchen Zhu Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, MLton developers In-Reply-To: <5195a210705310031n19f035e7sc5d96568e86496ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705310717.01553.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5195a210705310031n19f035e7sc5d96568e86496ae@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:12:47 +1000 Message-Id: <1180613567.15528.6.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 465EBBC4.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 4.5:98 3200:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 experimental:01 caml-list:01 tar:01 unsafe:01 unsafe:01 crashes:03 zhu:04 comparison:04 thu:05 On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 15:31 +0800, Yuanchen Zhu wrote: > > > The new running time is: > > > > > > Ocaml (unsafe) : user: 21.477s, real: 23.366s > > > > What is the running time for safe OCaml? > > Safe OCaml adds another 4.5s. > > > > > > which is much in line with MLton: > > > > > > MLton (safe): user: 17.981s, real: 21.968s http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~yzhu/hdrRc.tar.bz2 Results on my box, amd64 single core 3200 Athlon, 1MG, Ubuntu 7.04: remove the -align 8 from mlton, it crashes the experimental build, remove -ffast-math from ocaml, this is not a valid option for 3.10: MLton: 27.15 Unsafe Ocaml: 19.59 Safe Ocaml: 21.38 Note the mlton amd64 build is NOT optimised for machine level performance (it's a bootstrap build being checked for correctness). -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net