From: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
To: John Max Skaller <skaller@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:23:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200208281720.NAA06955@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D6CD46E.1030701@ozemail.com.au>
On Wednesday 28 August 2002 09:47 am, John Max Skaller wrote:
> > BTW does O'Caml inline tail-recursive functions?
>
> Do you mean loop unrolling? I hear that it doesn't
> do loop unrolling. [There's nothing to gain from
> a simple inlining, unless the loop is only executed
> once or twice - you'd only save a single function call]
It's been mentioned that O'Caml can inline functions that are not recursive
(including inlining across module boundaries). Tail-recursive functions can
be, basically, transformed into non-recursive functions by the compiler. So I
was wondering if O'Caml inlined them. The benefits of inlining tail-recursive
functions should thus be the same as the benefits of inlining non-recursive
functions.
Cheers
Oleg
-------------------
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:[~2002-08-28 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-18 17:17 [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark 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
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 ` Oleg [this message]
2002-08-31 1:13 ` inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) 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=200208281720.NAA06955@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu \
--to=oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=skaller@ozemail.com.au \
/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).