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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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 3FF8ABC69 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:29:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l43KTchO012823 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 22:29:39 +0200 Received: from qservice2.delacy.com [209.213.205.130] by janestcapital.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.10) id A63301F4; Thu, 03 May 2007 16:29:39 -0400 Received: from nyc-qws-003.delacy.com ([172.25.131.103] helo=nyc-qws-003) by qservice2.delacy.com with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hjhvi-0001aX-0r for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 03 May 2007 16:29:34 -0400 Received: by nyc-qws-003 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 3 May 2007 16:29:34 -0400 From: mmottl@janestcapital.com Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:29:34 -0400 To: OCaml Subject: Inlining and code placement Message-ID: <20070503202932.GB12369@nyc-qws-003.delacy.com> Mail-Followup-To: OCaml Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 463A4632.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; inlining:01 inlining:01 markus:01 strong:96 seems:03 differences:05 likely:08 majority:89 reasonable:12 concerning:13 but:14 some:14 code:17 code:17 means:19 Hi all, concerning my email about inlining from a few days ago: it seems that the majority of differences is not so much due to the inlining level but due to code placement. This means that playing with the inlining level beyond some reasonable, small value is likely to not have any strong impact on the performance of the program. Markus