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 5AF31BC69 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 12:36:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pih-relay06.plus.net (pih-relay06.plus.net [212.159.14.133]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4VAaG6w012444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 12:36:17 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay06.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1Hti0t-0006JO-UK for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 31 May 2007 11:36:16 +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 11:30:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705311008.16662.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <6f9f8f4a0705310325n2064c09cp5bd9fead5a046057@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f9f8f4a0705310325n2064c09cp5bd9fead5a046057@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705311130.48179.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 465EA520.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 vectors:01 bigarray:01 ffi:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 languages:03 float:03 float:03 module:03 overhead:04 On Thursday 31 May 2007 11:25:40 Loup Vaillant wrote: > Talking about lots of float, I suppose you meant arrays. Not necessarily big arrays. Look at the ray tracer, for example: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/ Lots of float^3 vectors, float * float^3 spheres and so on. > In that case, > can't you use the bigarray module? Or does the overhead of the FFI > cancel out the benefit of the improved cache coherency? I couldn't get big arrays to give better performance here. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e