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 E7F56BCAF for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 04:55:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j662t6Fi005722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 04:55:06 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Dq040-0000Zv-1P for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:55:04 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: x86 vs AMD64 OCaml compiler performance Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 03:53:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507060353.29648.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42CB480A.004 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 byte:01 compilation:01 compilation:01 byte:01 vastly:01 frog:98 presenta:98 native:02 native:02 slightly:02 900:96 800:95 roughly:09 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: I just timed recompilation of my latest project to both byte code and native code on both 900MHz Athlon t-bird and 800MHz Athlon64. To my suprise, compilation to native code takes roughly the same amount of time on both computers but compilation to byte code is slightly faster (1m18 vs 1m40) on x86 but vastly faster (21s vs 1m50) on AMD64. Any ideas why? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Technical Presentation Software http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/presenta