From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A4DBB91
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:59:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-054-020.arcor-ip.net [145.254.54.20])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0N2x4Ph016148
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:59:04 +0100
Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501)
	id 00B10A2044; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:27:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:27:13 +0100
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml sums the harmonic series -- four ways, four benchmarks: floating point performance
Message-ID: <20050123022713.GA4333@first.in-berlin.de>
References: <3D3A6BF5-657B-11D9-A551-000393A34E82@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D3A6BF5-657B-11D9-A551-000393A34E82@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41F312F8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 argv:01 printf:01 printf:01 native-code:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 imho:01 ...:98 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0
X-Spam-Level: 

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Will M. Farr wrote:
[...]
> Here's the code for the fastest implementation:
> 
> let sum_harmonic4 n =
>   let sum = ref 1.0 in
>   let ifloat = ref 2.0 in
>     for i = 2 to n do
>       sum := !sum +. 1.0/.(!ifloat);
>       ifloat := !ifloat +. 1.0
>     done;
>     !sum;;
> 
> let _ =
>   let n = int_of_string (Sys.argv.(1)) in
>     Printf.printf "%g\n" (sum_harmonic4 n);;

I tried harmonic4 on Powerbook G4, 400 MHz and the
native-code needs  about 1 min 50s.

The Bytecode for harmonic4 runs in about 1min 53 s.

It seems that there is no real distinction between
bytecode and native code. At least on that system,
#or at least on that task.


I use Panther OS. It seems that it's more than twice as fast as your OS
(look at the processor frequency: 400 MHz on my PB G4, 800 MHz on yours...).

Which OS are you running? An older version of Mac-OS-X? Or Linux? (which one?)

Maybe you can speed-up your calculations a lot, when installing a different
operating system on your computer.

I didn't try the other implementations.
IMHO you can gain more performance easier, when
changing your OS. Easier than looking at some code optimizations...?!
                                   (which you nevertheless can do too)


Ciao,
   Oliver