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 TAA27504; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:20:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27542 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:20:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (dewberry.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.68]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7SHKgD15612 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:20:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from there (tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu [156.111.84.180]) by dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA06955; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200208281720.NAA06955@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Oleg To: John Max Skaller Subject: inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:23:13 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: caml-list@inria.fr References: <200208181716.NAA10426@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> <200208232134.RAA09914@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> <3D6CD46E.1030701@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D6CD46E.1030701@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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