From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 99A23BB91 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:18:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-061-021.arcor-ip.net [145.254.61.21]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0NFIZDG007013 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:18:36 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 362DBA22BE; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:18:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:18:35 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: "Will M. Farr" Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml sums the harmonic series -- four ways, four benchmarks: floating point performance Message-ID: <20050123151835.GC320@first.in-berlin.de> References: <3D3A6BF5-657B-11D9-A551-000393A34E82@mit.edu> <20050123022713.GA4333@first.in-berlin.de> <10E46C0C-6D05-11D9-B4DD-000393A34E82@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10E46C0C-6D05-11D9-B4DD-000393A34E82@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41F3C04B.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 hash:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 binary:01 native-code:01 executables:01 native:02 message-----:03 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 Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0500, Will M. Farr wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm running 10.3.7 -- I don't think there's any newer version. When I > run harmonic4 as follows: > > time ./harmonic 1000000000 > 21.3005 > > real 1m3.764s > user 1m0.590s > sys 0m0.130s > > the above is what I get. I'm not sure why I'm not exactly 2x faster > than you, but there's plenty of things which could affect that. > > Running the bytecode on my system gives: > > time ./harmonic.bc 1000000000 > 21.3005 > > real 11m51.239s > user 11m11.600s > sys 0m0.940s > > I would be pretty surprised to see the bytecode come even close to the > native code version --- are you sure about the numbers on your system? No, not more! I have used the wrong binary! :( I thought I had the same names for the executables, after recompiling them for the test, but the native-code had a different name and so I called the same file twice! :( Sorry, I'm really chaotic these days! :( Ciao, Oliver