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 8A158BCAE for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from grisu.bik-gmbh.de (grisu.bik-gmbh.de [217.110.154.194]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j666gl9t007505 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:42:48 +0200 Received: from [192.168.125.193] (prony.bik-gmbh.de [192.168.125.193]) by grisu.bik-gmbh.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j666ga57076563; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 08:42:36 +0200 (CEST). Message-ID: <42CB7DB9.6010107@bik-gmbh.de> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:44:09 +0200 From: Florian Hars User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] x86 vs AMD64 OCaml compiler performance References: <200507060353.29648.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200507060353.29648.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42CB7D67.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; florian:01 hars:01 hars:01 bik-gmbh:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 ocamlopt:01 ocamlopt:01 florian:01 ...:98 wrote:01 opt:05 explain:11 factor:12 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: Jon Harrop wrote: > Any ideas why? You have doublechecked that you always use either ocamlopt or ocamlopt.opt, but not accidentally one for x86 and the other for amd64? This would explain the factor of approximately 5 you see... Yours, Florian.