From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0234BBAF for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 19:59:28 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar4BAAtS9UrUnwcki2dsb2JhbACCHJlZAQEBCA0KBxEGvgCEPgSBaA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,700,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="36350804" Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.36]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 07 Nov 2009 19:59:28 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEGAAtS9UpUXebi/2dsb2JhbACCHNgZhD4EgWg Received: from relay03.plus.net ([84.93.230.226]) by relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2009 18:59:28 +0000 Received: from [87.113.75.250] (helo=leper.local) by relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1N6qVT-0006oL-VB; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:59:28 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, Jan Kybic Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: ATS versus Ocaml Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 19:00:26 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr References: <878wem75iq.fsf@fel.cvut.cz> <87ljijd5os.fsf@fel.cvut.cz> In-Reply-To: <87ljijd5os.fsf@fel.cvut.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200911071900.27308.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: f0ca40a2b4c6f0684f1f347f66cbdaa6 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 2009:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 explicitly:02 slower:02 86,:04 void:06 sort:12 ltd:87 ration:87 should:13 between:13 On Friday 06 November 2009 15:38:27 Jan Kybic wrote: > >I notice that in ATS you have to give the type of the array explicitly > > fn bubble_sort (a : array0 double ) : void = > > > so you should also do so in the OCaml code, using > > You are right, I am sorry for this omission. Having done that, the > ration between Ocaml and ATS times drops to 3:1 (Ocaml being slower). On x86, I get: ATS: 0.189s HLVM: 0.486s OCaml: 0.552s On x64, I get: OCaml: 0.299s -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e