From: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
To: "caml-list" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:58:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200208181957.PAA08736@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020818191613.GC8185@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at>
On Sunday 18 August 2002 03:16 pm, Markus Mottl wrote:
> My timings differ considerably (AMD Athlon 800 MHz 256 MB RAM; g++-2.96;
> demo_all.sh instead of demo_all_root.sh):
g++-3.2 removes abstraction penalty related to iterators, etc.
[...]
> Note, btw., that I have measured user time: real time, which you have
> chosen is just too unstable on my machine.
On my machine/OS (Linux 2.4), user and real time are usually the same for
ocaml, but can differ somewhat for C++ (probably because malloc/free is done
by the kernel or something, I wouldn't know). Had I used user time, it would
have steered the results in favor of C++ a little more in some cases.
[...]
> Not on my machine / with my compiler. Btw., not very fair of you to
> compare ephemeral and persistent datastructures... ;-)
I'm not! Both tree_mutable_ml.ml and tree_cpp.cpp contain mutable binary
trees. I think your C++ tree is slower than mine because of the old compiler
(Or maybe it's the OS: tree allocates a lot of small objects).
[...]
> Look at the assembler output for details... ;-)
IANAAP (I am not an assembly programmer :)
Cheers,
Oleg
P.S. It looks like List and Array iteration is somehow much faster on Athlon
than P3 Xeon.
-------------------
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-18 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-18 17:17 Oleg
2002-08-18 18:00 ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:06 ` Oleg
2002-08-18 21:37 ` William Chesters
2002-08-19 13:02 ` Xavier Leroy
2002-08-19 13:58 ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-19 21:16 ` malc
2002-08-19 22:06 ` [Caml-list] Specialization (was: Inlining across functors) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-20 6:35 ` [Caml-list] " malc
2002-08-20 6:25 ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) malc
2002-08-19 14:39 ` [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark Oleg
2002-08-19 15:15 ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:16 ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-18 19:58 ` Oleg [this message]
2002-08-18 22:59 ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-19 13:12 ` malc
2002-08-19 13:22 ` malc
2002-08-23 21:05 ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-23 21:35 ` Oleg
2002-08-28 13:47 ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-28 14:34 ` Alain Frisch
2002-08-28 17:23 ` inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Oleg
2002-08-31 1:13 ` John Max Skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200208181957.PAA08736@hickory.cc.columbia.edu \
--to=oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).