From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3R6q6Uh001285
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:52:06 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuQDAD+8t03UGyoFkWdsb2JhbACYPY0uFAEBAQEJCwsHFAMitj6NfYV2BJJlD4l+
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,273,1301868000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="93907918"
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 08:51:59 +0200
Received: from yeeloong (unknown [82.67.194.89])
	by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 036A7D48037
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:51:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by yeeloong (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:51:28 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:51:28 +0200
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20110427065128.GA3440@yeeloong.happyleptic.org>
References: <BANLkTikK2CLn1zoeA2i8DSMdCoEFsO9j6g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikK2CLn1zoeA2i8DSMdCoEFsO9j6g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] f#/mono vs ocaml runtime system - open gl animation
 screen tearing.

Another difference between the two is not the GC but the way your GL
binding initialize opengl (for instance, double buffering like
previously mentioned, or failure to get the proper bit depth of pixel
format). These settings can make a big differnce as well.

Also, why don't you post a link to the offending program ?
If it's merely a rotating triangle you have hardly any intellectual
property in there :-)
Without this one can only speculate...