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 9B6B3BB84 for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:37 +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 k47KVaQ2003034 for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:37 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA01148 for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k47KVYap003027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:35 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first.in-berlin.de (e178036008.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.36.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id k47KVWVa017376 for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:33 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4CCF7262CA2; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 22:31:32 +0200 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Performance on PPC Message-ID: <20060507203132.GA3378@first.in-berlin.de> References: <200604290029.20792.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604290029.20792.jon@ffconsultancy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 445E5929.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 445E5926.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml:01 compares:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 2006:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 benchmark:02 let:03 i'd:05 processor:06 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 Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:29:20AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Has anyone done any OCaml benchmarks on x86/AMD64 and PPC? I'd like to know > how PPC compares specifically on OCaml programs. I have not done Benchmarks on PPC, but I use OCaml on a PPC-machine and it's quite fast. I normally use bytecode, and for most things this is fast enough. :) If you have a ready-to-run benchmark sources, you can send them me and I can let it run here. I have a 400 MHz Powerbook (G4 processor), running OS-X 10.3.9 Ciao, Oliver