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 AAA28882; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:51:44 +0100 (MET) 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 AAA28645 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:51:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from dux.ru (ns.dux.ru [193.125.210.65]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h0KNpgv11542 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:51:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from dux.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dux.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0KNtc1c005545 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:55:38 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from snob@snob.spb.ru) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by dux.ru (8.12.6/8.12.1/Submit) with UUCP id h0KNtbXG005544 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:55:37 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from snob@snob.spb.ru) Received: (qmail 1152 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jan 2003 23:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO athlon.snob.spb.ru) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 20 Jan 2003 23:50:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Nickolay Semyonov-Kolchin To: David Chase Subject: Re: Coyote Gulch test in Caml (was Re: [Caml-list] speed ) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:39:01 +0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <200301181749.48295.oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030120161510.066e4598@pop.theWorld.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030120161510.066e4598@pop.theWorld.com> Cc: caml-list@inria.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200301210239.01608.snob@snob.spb.ru> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tuesday 21 January 2003 02:23, David Chase wrote: > > I've noticed over the years that people focus on speed over many other > things, usually because they can measure it. Well, we can measure > accuracy of transcendental functions, too, so I thought I would > ask the question. How much is enough for your application? Of the > languages being benchmarked, which one has the most accurate > transcendental functions? Is this less important than speed? > Speed and accuracy are different things. Matlab class software need accur= acy,=20 most computer games need speed. This is the reason of "-ffast-math" key i= n=20 gcc. Ocaml lacks such key, and always produce ineffecient floating-point=20 code. Nickolay ------------------- 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