From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6404BC84 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:43:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2U8fNmI010703 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:41:23 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA22553 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:41:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from alex.barettalocal.com (h213-255-109-130.albacom.net [213.255.109.130] (may be forged)) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2U8fMb7010699 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:41:22 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alex.barettalocal.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181412BAA3C; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <424A6632.1020902@barettadeit.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:41:22 +0200 From: Alex Baretta User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: Jon Harrop , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] 32- and 64-bit performance References: <200503300340.15874.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <424A593A.5050608@barettadeit.com> <1112169658.27768.1.camel@dsws> In-Reply-To: <1112169658.27768.1.camel@dsws> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424A6633.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424A6632.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; baretta:01 caml-list:01 baretta:01 pointers:01 alignment:01 ocaml:01 integers:01 compiler:01 symbolic:01 allocations:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 structures:01 data:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 09:46 +0200, Alex Baretta wrote: > > 64-bit data structures (due to bigger pointers, alignment, and in OCaml > bigger default integers) are bigger, so things that are constrained by > memory bandwidth are obviously going to be faster as 32-bit. > > On other architectures where you can use 32-bit or 64-bit that are > otherwise identical, 32-bit is generally faster. Ah, obviously! But this seems to imply that a 32-bit machine/compiler couple would be generally faster on symbolic processing algorithms, which generally require a good deal of memory allocations/deallocations. Since this is the kind of code which seems to be most idiomatic in Ocaml, I wonder how well or how badly 64 bits will actually impact all our software. Alex -- ********************************************************************* http://www.barettadeit.com/ Baretta DE&IT A division of Baretta SRL tel. +39 02 370 111 55 fax. +39 02 370 111 54 Our technology: The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml) The FreerP Project