From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <adrien@notk.org>
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 0561B7F75C
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:37:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  adrien@notk.org) identity=pra; client-ip=91.121.71.147;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  adrien@notk.org designates 91.121.71.147 as permitted sender)
  identity=mailfrom; client-ip=91.121.71.147;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="adrien@notk.org"; x-sender="adrien@notk.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@nautica.notk.org) identity=helo;
  client-ip=91.121.71.147;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="adrien@notk.org";
  x-sender="postmaster@nautica.notk.org";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFALdFEFRbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABZgw2DVlDLaIMfAYEOFniEBAEFI1YQCw4KAgIFEw4CAg8FGDGIWahNgW2TNAEXgSyOIQeCeTaBHQWccgGVLoNjO4J+AQEB
X-IPAS-Result: AgcFALdFEFRbeUeT/2dsb2JhbABZgw2DVlDLaIMfAYEOFniEBAEFI1YQCw4KAgIFEw4CAg8FGDGIWahNgW2TNAEXgSyOIQeCeTaBHQWccgGVLoNjO4J+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,499,1406584800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="93952628"
Received: from nautica.notk.org ([91.121.71.147])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Sep 2014 14:37:50 +0200
Received: by nautica.notk.org (Postfix, from userid 1003)
	id A1226C009; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:37:49 +0200
From: Adrien Nader <adrien@notk.org>
To: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
Cc: Yotam Barnoy <yotambarnoy@gmail.com>,
	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
	Ocaml Mailing List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <20140910123749.GA23756@notk.org>
References: <54101221.3010304@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1410348425.3003.11.camel@thinkpad>
 <CAN6ygO=U3uN+U2iTJvbRv6a+92GO_cZYxM==Q6YGqGw1bnE6-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1410351988.3003.19.camel@thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1410351988.3003.19.camel@thinkpad>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Clarification for the configuration of comparison
 functions

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2014, 08:07 -0400 schrieb Yotam Barnoy:
> > Another reason is performance. The generic, polymorphic comparison
> > function drops you out into C (which has a cost)
> 
> Don't think so. compare doesn't allocate memory, so the few extra
> instructions in caml_c_call for making allocation available from C
> aren't required. Calling compare shouldn't be slower than calling a
> function written in OCaml.

And calling C from OCaml is _very_ fast. Too fast to be a concern.

The other way round is slower, iirc maybe by a 100 factor.

(you should benchmark yourself if any of these might be a concern)

-- 
Adrien Nader