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 MAA10941; Thu, 15 May 2003 12:54:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA10723 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 12:54:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ep09.kernel.pl (ep09.kernel.pl [212.87.11.162]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h4FAs7H15511 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 12:54:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 28804 invoked by uid 566); 15 May 2003 10:54:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:53:21 +0200 From: Michal Moskal To: Xavier Leroy Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Performance problem Message-ID: <20030515105321.GA6096@roke.freak> References: <20030514210332.GA27927@swordfish> <16066.49355.349534.889868@karryall.dnsalias.org> <20030514210332.GA27927@swordfish> <55DB7CE4-8659-11D7-9845-000393863F70@exomi.com> <20030514223956.GB27927@swordfish> <20030514224130.GC27927@swordfish> <20030515095751.A5384@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030515095751.A5384@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-PGP-Fingerprint: CF89 1B14 11BE 1CC9 2CA3 7497 5E32 69B4 BC71 B4C2 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam: no; 0.00; michal:01 moskal:01 malekith:01 pld-linux:01 caml-list:01 ocamlc:01 ocamlopt:01 3.06,:01 timings:01 nativecode:01 -fpic:01 someting:01 wroclaw:01 regexp:01 kernel:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 09:57:51AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > > 2) there are no problems using bytecode : > > > 0.3s using bytecode > > > 23s using native > > This I doubt very much, and indeed a quick test shows that bytecode > and native take exactly the same time. This isn't surprising: > since 99% of the time is spent is the regexp engine, and this engine > is in C, it runs at the same speed in bytecode and in native-code. I have no idea *why* but here (Linux, x86), using ocamlc and ocamlopt 3.06, I get exactly the same timings (i.e. 0.44s for bytecode and 21.91s for native code). No special options (like -p or -g) were used for compilation. Does the bytecode and nativecode use *exectly* the same C engine (i.e. maybe one is compiled with different options (like -fpic -O2 or someting) ?) -- : Michal Moskal :: http://www.kernel.pl/~malekith : GCS {C,UL}++++$ a? !tv : PLD Linux ::::::::: Wroclaw University, CS Dept : {E-,w}-- {b++,e}>+++ h ------------------- 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