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 MAA13675; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:03:49 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA13493 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:03:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from quetelet.bik-gmbh.de (quetelet.bik-gmbh.de [194.233.237.132]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5SA3lD05791; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:03:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hars by quetelet.bik-gmbh.de with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15FYdU-000787-00; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:02:56 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:02:56 +0200 From: Florian Hars To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Where does Ocaml spend all the time? Message-ID: <20010628120256.C25747@hars> References: <20010628101635.A25747@hars> <20010628103953.D3129@verdot.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010628103953.D3129@verdot.inria.fr>; from daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr on Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:39:53AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:39:53AM +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > Of course you compiled by ocamlopt, not ocamlc...? Yes, and even -unsafe (which gives an performace increase of about 10 %). -inline 0 and -inline 1 don't make a difference (the first might be marginally faster), -inline 2 undoes the effect of -unsafe (multilevel cache architectures seem to be a funny thing...). So the problems seem to be somewhere else. Yours, Florian. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr