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 BAA25518; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:11:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 BAA25557 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:11:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from c016.snv.cp.net (c016-h015.c016.snv.cp.net [209.228.33.193]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id fB30B8n01970 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 01:11:08 +0100 (MET) Received: (cpmta 15718 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2001 16:11:03 -0800 Date: 2 Dec 2001 16:11:03 -0800 Message-ID: <20011203001103.15717.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> X-Sent: 3 Dec 2001 00:11:03 GMT Received: from [24.152.103.148] by mail.altavista.com with HTTP; 02 Dec 2001 16:11:03 PST Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Arturo Borquez X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.9.3.5 X-Sent-From: aborquez@altavista.com Subject: [Caml-list] partial function application perfomance Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi all camlers, I've being doing some benchmarks, and one of my tests measures partial function application perfomance. I was surprised by results: 20+ times slower than a full function application. I expected a greater time but 20 times is a lot more ... I've checked my program and seems ok, indeed the results were correct. Is this overhead normal to partial function applications? Best regards. Arturo Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.altavista.com ------------------- 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