From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rixed@happyleptic.org>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7F47EE51
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:27:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=pra; client-ip=212.27.42.5;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  rixed@happyleptic.org) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=212.27.42.5;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@smtp5-g21.free.fr) identity=helo;
  client-ip=212.27.42.5;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="rixed@happyleptic.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@smtp5-g21.free.fr";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvoBAAoVeFHUGyoFlGdsb2JhbABQwiCBABYOAQEBAQcNCQkUAyWCIAEFOk8LIRMSDwUoiEy+R483FoJUYQOXG5Qx
X-IPAS-Result: AvoBAAoVeFHUGyoFlGdsb2JhbABQwiCBABYOAQEBAQcNCQkUAyWCIAEFOk8LIRMSDwUoiEy+R483FoJUYQOXG5Qx
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,542,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="12094291"
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2013 19:26:59 +0200
Received: from shuttle.happyleptic.org (unknown [82.67.194.89])
	by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A123D4803E
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:26:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rixed by shuttle.happyleptic.org with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1UV3T4-0001Zy-J4
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:26:54 +0200
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:26:54 +0200
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20130424172654.GA5722@shuttle.happyleptic.org>
References: <20130424183543.e3a4290382f7f9ce7b522a57@gmail.com>
 <201304241557.r3OFvT9a012995@outgoing.mit.edu>
 <51780360.3020607@frisch.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51780360.3020607@frisch.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ackermann microbenchmark strange results

-[ Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:08:00PM +0200, Alain Frisch ]----
> +1
> 
> I've already seen 20% speedup obtained by adding some dead code (in
> an OCaml program, but this is irrelevant).

Remember me of a paper I read some years ago that was measuring the effect of
the various optimisation levels of gcc against the effect of addresses choices
(randomised using environment strings of various lengths!), and which
conclusion was that the effect of -O3 compared to -O2 was less than the effect
of "choosing" a good environment string :-)

Couldn't find it again using Google ; maybe someone remember this paper?