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 71753BC32 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:45:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2H9jmus017774 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:45:48 +0100 Received: from fwd16.aul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1DBrZb-0007dt-05; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:45:47 +0100 Received: from [217.82.236.143] (EPE3noZHreTBLgXGBZmlErqqr7QO7igixajvZhjsbD-drjq0OTqgch@[217.82.236.143]) by fwd16.sul.t-online.de with esmtp id 1DBrZV-1RyZBQ0; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:45:41 +0100 Message-ID: <423951C4.8040804@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:45:40 +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] OCaml troll on Slashdot References: <20050316001819.GB347@first.in-berlin.de> <20050316.224108.35690658.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <200503161951.48923.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: EPE3noZHreTBLgXGBZmlErqqr7QO7igixajvZhjsbD-drjq0OTqgch X-TOI-MSGID: 003c9d18-156d-402f-8ef6-417be2126dbd X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 423951CC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 recursive:01 compilation:01 byte:01 compilation:01 bytecode:01 compiler:01 wrote:01 tail:01 tail:01 native:02 machine:08 sparc:08 except:10 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: brogoff wrote: >I just ran your counterexample and the tail recursive code was faster >for each. I used native code compilation. > >Byte code compilation gives similar results to yours, except that as I ran the >test on "ye olde SPARC machine", it took a hell of a lot longer. > > As far as I know, the bytecode compiler does not eliminate tail calls.