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=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64669BBAF for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:49:45 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlkDAC/dukpQRFuwWWdsb2JhbACadgEUFwS6bIQbBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,444,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="34896396" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2009 11:49:45 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MqkxL-0003oC-4h; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:49:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:49:43 +0100 To: Jon Harrop Cc: Philippe Wang , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures Message-ID: <20090924094943.GA14407@annexia.org> References: <200909240105.18288.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4d1b2df20909231701l2248f7f7w841b1d5ece9aa62e@mail.gmail.com> <200909240247.17560.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909240247.17560.jon@ffconsultancy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 2009:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 threaded:03 thu:05 sep:06 red:92 obvious:10 question:13 isn't:13 impossible:22 that:23 faster:25 On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:47:17AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > Wow! 2.6x faster on 2 cores is good. ;-) Isn't that impossible? Or is the multicore GC better than the single threaded one? (Sorry if this is a stupid or obvious question) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat