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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0DABC69 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 12:32:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net (ptb-relay03.plus.net [212.159.14.214]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4VAWvWp011469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 12:32:58 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Hthxg-00005p-Pu for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:32:57 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:27:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705311008.16662.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5195a210705310222p6aa8482fr70e7bf2b2b631b72@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5195a210705310222p6aa8482fr70e7bf2b2b631b72@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705311127.28639.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 465EA459.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 inlining:01 frog:98 compilers:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 zhu:04 overhead:04 comparison:04 performs:06 prediction:06 although:09 specializing:89 however:13 On Thursday 31 May 2007 10:22:34 Yuanchen Zhu wrote: > Yes, I am aware of the inefficiency here. Although because of branch > prediction on modern CPUs, the actual running time overhead would not > be that big. That is not true. > My point, however, is that MLton and OCaml are being fed the same > code, and if OCaml performs specializing and proper inlining, it will > get almost twice its current performance. The OCaml compilers are designed to handle good code. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e