From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106B2BC75 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:19:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1PHJFat007973 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:19:15 +0100 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 SAA19157 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:19:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from hedwig1.umh.ac.be (hedwig2.umh.ac.be [193.190.193.73]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1PHJEgI007968 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:19:15 +0100 Received: from poincare (mathwifi.swapping.umh.ac.be [10.102.100.18]) by hedwig1.umh.ac.be (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1PHMmop512206; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:22:54 +0100 Received: from poincare ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost ident=trch) by poincare with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1D4j6j-0002oZ-00; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:18:29 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:17:54 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20050225.181754.69456034.debian00@tiscali.be> To: jfc@mit.edu Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] NBody (one more question) From: Christophe TROESTLER In-Reply-To: <200502251706.j1PH6qci027710@mass-toolpike.mit.edu> References: <20050224.231855.40627447.debian00@tiscali.be> <200502251706.j1PH6qci027710@mass-toolpike.mit.edu> Organization: None X-Spook: CBNRC AMEMB e-cash clandestine Baranyi cryptanalysis benelux top secret Armani Aldergrove X-Blessing: Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Pema Siddhi Hum X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux (http://www.linux.org/) X-Mailer-URL: http://www.mew.org/ X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421F5E13.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 421F5E12.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 christophe:01 troestler:01 jfc:01 wrote:01 gcc:01 gcc:01 speedup:01 debian:02 chris:05 fri:05 combining:06 observed:07 edu:07 john:08 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, John Carr wrote: > > Optimizations in gcc -O1 compared to gcc -O0 include register > allocation, dead code elimination, branch straightening, common > subexpression elimination, instruction combining, and instruction > scheduling. Ok, but do you know which one(s) account for the speedup observed in this particular case? Regards, ChriS