From: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:02:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020819150201.B6276@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15711.57520.125841.25102@beertje.william.bogus>; from williamc@paneris.org on Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 07:00:16PM +0100
> the compiler doesn't inline Array.fold_left, and hence not your
> anonymous "fun" either, because it doesn't inline anything between
> compilation units.
Just for the record: ocamlopt does perform inlining across compilation
units (via the information stored in .cmx files). What it doesn't do,
however, is inlining and specialization of recursive function definitions.
Two more points before I stop reading this "yet another stupid
micro-benchmark" thread:
* http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/speed.html is mandatory reading before
making any performance claim about OCaml.
* http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/ is a (rare) example of a
non-stupid inter-language performance comparison.
- 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-19 13:02 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 [this message]
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
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=20020819150201.B6276@pauillac.inria.fr \
--to=xavier.leroy@inria.fr \
--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).