From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 7D421BC69 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:01:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net (pih-relay04.plus.net [212.159.14.131]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l27L1t0Y022860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:01:56 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1HP3Gj-0004oy-BM for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:01:55 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] beta-test of OCaml 3.10.0 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:55:47 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703072055.47829.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45EF2843.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 non-trivial:01 ocamlopt:01 gcc:01 timings:01 ocaml:01 ofs:01 ocamlopt:01 buffer:01 smoke:98 presenta:98 presenta:98 frog:98 wrote:01 compile:01 On Wednesday 07 March 2007 15:53, Joel Reymont wrote: > Deep into my first project I confirm that ocamlbuild is VERY nifty. Excellent news. Make just can't hack it when things get non-trivial and I'm bored of recompiling everything all the time, even if ocamlopt is a million times faster than gcc. :-) Here are my results (timings are old vs new) for my 2.2GHz AMD64x2: OCaml itself still doesn't parallel build but serial builds in around 4mins. Ray tracer builds fine: 3.963s vs 4.000s run time n-th nearest neighbour example from OFS builds and runs fine: 8.142s vs 8.320s Smoke builds fine and runs fine: 12.39s vs 11.56s build time, 68.5fps vs 72.5fps running speed Presenta builds fine: 39.354s vs 39.524s I've only had one problem and I'm not sure if that is due to the new version of ocamlopt: Presenta screws up font rendering when using the experimental stencil buffer code instead of the usual GLU tesselator code. So my conclusion is that 3.10 looks fine. Compile times are slightly faster in some cases. Running times are basically indifferent. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists