From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30B997F30A
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:47 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=pra;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de) identity=helo;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArYLAEDEQFHAbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDiCO3GIUbAgGBWRYOAQEWJgQkgisBBSNmCwkRAgUhAgIPBRiIWASwVJJcFYEOjSBRFoIXMmEDjkCIFZQC
X-IPAS-Result: ArYLAEDEQFHAbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDiCO3GIUbAgGBWRYOAQEWJgQkgisBBSNmCwkRAgUhAgIPBRiIWASwVJJcFYEOjSBRFoIXMmEDjkCIFZQC
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,838,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="7289856"
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Mar 2013 19:27:46 +0100
X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de
X-Envelope-To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Received: from first (e178039068.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.39.68])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id r2DIRjRx008484
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:45 +0100
Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 80A2315400E6; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:45 +0100
From: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20130313182745.GC3814@siouxsie>
References: <00ba01ce200c$d23f1910$76bd4b30$@ffconsultancy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00ba01ce200c$d23f1910$76bd4b30$@ffconsultancy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Case study in optimization: porting a compiler from
 OCaml to F#

Hello Jon,

thanks for your report.
Very interesting.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 05:04:26PM -0000, Jon Harrop wrote:
[...]
> After demonstrating the correctness of the translation, my effort turned to
> trying to improve performance in an attempt to compete with the original
> OCaml code. I had believed that this could well prove to be prohibitively
> difficult or even impossible because symbolic code is OCaml's main strength.
> However, I have managed to make the F# around 8x faster than it was and, in
> particular, substantially faster than the original OCaml.
[...]

What is missing, is the information, how many cores / processors the machine has,
on which the F# code runs, and if the OCaml code runs on the same machine.
What about Ocaml Byteocde vs. Nativecode?

And what, if the re-designt program would be back-ported to OCaml?

Ciao,
   Oliver