From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB76BC8B for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:42:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1CDgveh003532 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:42:57 +0100 Received: from fwd09.aul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1CzxY1-0004BL-00; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:42:57 +0100 Received: from [217.95.166.165] (rAfy9yZ-YePGirQ4XF9mev5vBUqNwkS2iimZsvNdv5Oj9u20IkQiQF@[217.95.166.165]) by fwd09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1CzxXy-0xPfA80; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <420E07DF.7030109@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:42:55 +0100 From: Christian Szegedy User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050131) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory allocation nano-benchmark. References: <420B7A7E.90504@or.uni-bonn.de> <420BB3E3.1060005@t-online.de> <20050211112654.GB429@first.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20050211112654.GB429@first.in-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: rAfy9yZ-YePGirQ4XF9mev5vBUqNwkS2iimZsvNdv5Oj9u20IkQiQF X-TOI-MSGID: 1eb00f4a-d042-4cd7-915f-ffda18420af7 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 420E07E1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 runtime:01 ocaml:01 overhead:03 negligible:04 differences:05 mean:07 memory:08 difference:13 grid:14 grid:14 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Oliver Bandel wrote: >What does this mean? >Is only the work on the grid faster, or is the program >all in all (mem allocation AND working on the grid) >faster in OCaml or in C? > > Only the work on the grid is about as fast as in C. The differences were negligible. The overall difference in the runtime was due to the allocation overhead in the OCaml code.