From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net>
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 491CE7EE51
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:31:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net) identity=pra;
  client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@mail.etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=176.9.138.55;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.etorok.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlkJAAoVeFGwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABQgwY2Ab5aBAQBgQAWdIIfAQEFQAEBOA8LGAklDwJGEwYCAogUCKwMhDwBBY1rBo83FoM1iQ2OEoElhGmLEoMR
X-IPAS-Result: AlkJAAoVeFGwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABQgwY2Ab5aBAQBgQAWdIIfAQEFQAEBOA8LGAklDwJGEwYCAogUCKwMhDwBBY1rBo83FoM1iQ2OEoElhGmLEoMR
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,542,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="14711568"
Received: from mail.etorok.net ([176.9.138.55])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2013 19:31:55 +0200
Received: from [172.30.42.2] (unknown [79.114.36.237])
	by mail.etorok.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 226DA46C6
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:31:54 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=etorok.net;
	s=MAILOUT; t=1366824714;
	bh=d87d93c7KrxPzi+REUIqcKnBfWEsRrkgCzKmdJoY+ew=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:
	 In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=NCSM7fGLS9/1Yc9vVlQOLxf97tTG2szHhRBDOl/d1+n1XqheFn6vcrLy8qOCWG24a
	 rRY14rd+DGpbTwllPIsSpLpjeD0ztCzM5YB0c8u1BH+IkNDYgDq6/W/zKMNetuerN5
	 hbNywhXvgwUbqbtXTKUWlfSuMOsfIxpdraXIhd6k=
Message-ID: <51781709.30604@etorok.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:31:53 +0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= <edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <20130424183543.e3a4290382f7f9ce7b522a57@gmail.com> <201304241557.r3OFvT9a012995@outgoing.mit.edu> <51780360.3020607@frisch.fr> <20130424172654.GA5722@shuttle.happyleptic.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130424172654.GA5722@shuttle.happyleptic.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ackermann microbenchmark strange results

On 04/24/2013 08:26 PM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> -[ Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:08:00PM +0200, Alain Frisch ]----
>> +1
>>
>> I've already seen 20% speedup obtained by adding some dead code (in
>> an OCaml program, but this is irrelevant).
> 
> Remember me of a paper I read some years ago that was measuring the effect of
> the various optimisation levels of gcc against the effect of addresses choices
> (randomised using environment strings of various lengths!), and which
> conclusion was that the effect of -O3 compared to -O2 was less than the effect
> of "choosing" a good environment string :-)
> 
> Couldn't find it again using Google ; maybe someone remember this paper?
> 
> 

http://plasma.cs.umass.edu/emery/stabilizer

--Edwin