From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 0468EBBBB for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:42:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k2U2gSfc003156 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:42:28 +0200 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 EAA29559 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:42:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from crunchberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (CRUNCHBERRY.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.203.75]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k2U2gQ46011723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:42:27 +0200 Received: from stratocaster.home (LOPx4vyG@c-24-3-154-200.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [24.3.154.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by crunchberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2U2gMhW028474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ecc by stratocaster.home with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FOn78-0003II-DT for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:42:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:42:22 -0500 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] command line invocation performances Message-ID: <20060330024222.GC12509@localhost> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <442B3A67.8040804@email.sjsu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <442B3A67.8040804@email.sjsu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 From: Eric Cooper X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 442B4594.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 442B4592.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; invocation:01 ocaml:01 cmo:01 command-line:01 parsing:01 2006:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 sys:03 executable:03 fork:03 drawback:04 compiled:04 hsu:05 i'd:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 05:54:47PM -0800, jean-david hsu wrote: > Is there significant performance drawback when using Sys.command to call > an executable compiled from ocaml code compared to calling the same code > from a .cmo ? I haven't measured it, but I'd expect it to be insignificant compared to the cost of the fork, exec of sh, sh command-line parsing, and subsequent exec of your actual command. -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u