From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umh.ac.be>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E7BBBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:14:27 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYAAKO960zBvsFKmWdsb2JhbACDTpEXjhkBAQEBAQgLCgcRIq4GkHSBIoM2cwSKXg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,243,1288566000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="89208810"
Received: from dnsp.umh.ac.be (HELO hermes1.umh.ac.be) ([193.190.193.74])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2010 22:14:26 +0100
Received: from poincare (mathwifi1.swapping.umh.ac.be [10.102.100.203])
	by hermes1.umh.ac.be (8.14.2/8.13.6) with ESMTP id oANL6Lja479280;
	Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:06:21 +0100
Received: from localhost ([::1])
	by poincare with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umh.ac.be>)
	id 1PL0C0-0003Xa-Vx; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:14:25 +0100
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:14:24 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20101123.221424.782590833114439172.Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umons.ac.be>
To: igouy2@yahoo.com
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?
From: Christophe TROESTLER <Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umh.ac.be>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20101123T183441-692@post.gmane.org>
	<loom.20101123T190142-212@post.gmane.org>
References: <loom.20101123T030214-243@post.gmane.org>
	<20101123.113733.2059974256209184038.Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umons.ac.be>
	<loom.20101123T183441-692@post.gmane.org>
X-Face: #2fb%mPx>rRL@4ff~TVgZ"<[:,oL"`TUEGK/[8/qb58~C>jR(x4A+v/n)7BgpEtIph_neoLKJBq0JBY9:<qMr[nclFSC*8GVW;&@q*7^R?u"i{y>}8v|j
Organization: University of Mons
Return-Receipt-To: Christophe.Troestler@umons.ac.be
Disposition-Notification-To: Christophe.Troestler@umons.ac.be
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3.50 on Emacs 23.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 christophe:01 troestler:01 christophe:01 troestler:01 ocaml:01 tor:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 precisely:01 umh:01 writes:01 suggesting:02 external:03 

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:53:14 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> 
> Christophe TROESTLER writes:
> 
> > Since you are here, please explain why C can use memory pools and vec 
> > tor instructions but tuning the GC of OCaml ― although it is part of  
> > the standard library ― is considered an “alternative”.
> 
> [...] You seem to be suggesting some kind of equivalence between vector
> instructions and "tuning the GC".  You haven't said why they should
> be considered equivalent.

I did not say they are equivalent.  It is a matter of what is allowed
(or not) and for what reason.  The question is why is C allowed to use
an external library for managing its memory but — for this specific
benchmark which is precisely about managing memory — OCaml is not
authorized to make use of its very own library!

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:03:10 +0000, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> 
> Note that there is no restriction on "tuning the GC" for regex-dna.
> 
> Note that there is no restriction on "tuning the GC" for any task except
> binary-trees.

Note that you did not answer my question.