* [Caml-list] functor question @ 2002-07-24 4:26 Brian Naylor 2002-07-25 9:21 ` Xavier Leroy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Brian Naylor @ 2002-07-24 4:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: caml-list Is there any efficiency difference between: module Foo = Make (Bar) (Baz) and module Both = struct module Bar = Bar module Baz = Baz end module Foo = Make (Both) In other words, is it better to coalesce structures into a single functor application rather than to apply multiple functors? Do I pay more indirection costs in the first case? Thanks. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] functor question 2002-07-24 4:26 [Caml-list] functor question Brian Naylor @ 2002-07-25 9:21 ` Xavier Leroy 2002-07-25 9:55 ` [Caml-list] Functors, Modules and Indirections Thorsten Ohl 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Xavier Leroy @ 2002-07-25 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Naylor; +Cc: caml-list > Is there any efficiency difference between: > module Foo = Make (Bar) (Baz) > and > module Both = struct module Bar = Bar module Baz = Baz end > module Foo = Make (Both) > In other words, is it better to coalesce structures into a single > functor application rather than to apply multiple functors? Do I > pay more indirection costs in the first case? Thanks. Actually, you pay one more indirection in the second case (Make(Both)). - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Caml-list] Functors, Modules and Indirections 2002-07-25 9:21 ` Xavier Leroy @ 2002-07-25 9:55 ` Thorsten Ohl 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Ohl @ 2002-07-25 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: caml-list Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> writes: > [...] you pay one more indirection [...] Is there a theoretical reason for the native compiler not to resolve module indirections (including inlining) statically at compile time? [I see that it would break independent compilation for the bytecode compiler, but the native compiler requires recompilation of dependent modules anyway.] Or is there a technical reason other than potential code bloat? Or are there plane to implement it? In most cases, the performance penalty will be only a small constant factor, but it would be nice not having to worry about it at all --- even in hotspots. Curious, -Thorsten -- Thorsten Ohl, Physics Dept., Wuerzburg Univ. -- ohl@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~ohl/ [<=== PGP public key here] ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-07-26 21:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-07-24 4:26 [Caml-list] functor question Brian Naylor 2002-07-25 9:21 ` Xavier Leroy 2002-07-25 9:55 ` [Caml-list] Functors, Modules and Indirections Thorsten Ohl
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).