From: Daniel Andor <da209@cam.ac.uk>
To: Ocaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] looping recursion
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:44:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200407291144.11633.da209@cam.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040729095716.GC13419@yquem.inria.fr>
On Thursday 29 July 2004 10:57 am, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> Because for smaller list the "vanilla way" is more efficient.
A little benchmarking with short lists shows that for lists that are near or
smaller than my cache size (skaller's point), the stack map performs better;
especially in the byte-code case.
However, the thread was originally about long lists, and for that it is clear
that algorithms other than the vanilla map are better suited. To me, this
just proves that there's no such thing as universal optimisation (yet!).
One's got to actually think about the problem at hand. Damn. ;)
Daniel.
-------------------
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:[~2004-07-29 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-27 23:43 briand
2004-07-28 0:27 ` John Prevost
2004-07-28 0:38 ` John Prevost
2004-07-28 1:17 ` skaller
2004-07-28 1:05 ` briand
2004-07-28 1:43 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-28 2:49 ` briand
2004-07-28 3:12 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-28 3:20 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-28 5:54 ` brogoff
2004-07-28 7:22 ` Alex Baretta
2004-07-28 16:38 ` brogoff
2004-07-28 19:40 ` Jon Harrop
2004-07-28 20:18 ` Brandon J. Van Every
2004-07-29 6:01 ` Alex Baretta
2004-07-28 21:22 ` brogoff
2004-07-29 9:13 ` Daniel Andor
2004-07-29 9:25 ` Keith Wansbrough
2004-07-29 9:41 ` Nicolas Cannasse
2004-07-29 9:57 ` Xavier Leroy
2004-07-29 10:44 ` Daniel Andor [this message]
2004-07-29 12:56 ` brogoff
2004-07-29 10:11 ` skaller
2004-07-29 12:41 ` brogoff
2004-07-29 6:28 ` Alex Baretta
2004-07-29 14:58 ` brogoff
2004-07-29 16:12 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-29 17:49 ` james woodyatt
2004-07-29 19:25 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-29 20:01 ` brogoff
2004-07-30 4:42 ` james woodyatt
2004-07-29 17:44 ` james woodyatt
2004-07-29 23:12 ` skaller
2004-07-29 22:42 ` Alex Baretta
2004-07-30 2:38 ` Corey O'Connor
[not found] ` <200407300136.14042.jon@jdh30.plus.com>
2004-07-30 12:45 ` Alex Baretta
2004-07-30 17:07 ` brogoff
2004-07-30 18:25 ` [Caml-list] kaplan-okasaki-tarjan deque (was "looping recursion") james woodyatt
2004-07-30 21:20 ` brogoff
2004-07-31 5:37 ` james woodyatt
2004-07-28 7:27 ` [Caml-list] looping recursion skaller
2004-07-28 14:36 ` Brian Hurt
2004-07-28 22:05 ` skaller
2004-07-28 0:37 ` 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=200407291144.11633.da209@cam.ac.uk \
--to=da209@cam.ac.uk \
--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).