From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F45BC70 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.226]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l516ah2t016622 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:36:44 +0200 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 69so383501wra for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:36:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=XhfIlPntsvogCs0JmNrpvvxmLjm3t/byofU4WdXBbzPYbmka58/7iIlqE7lv6pevXTxTOqn9yv5317G0oVhV6ObG+jMoggSs/O6vM5B+/KlCNU2nAgrBx21ENVj14c5p+lREoi1wKVm6mxLN2Hc40Li9ghrCDLugN5GPwshZ7RY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=fpOV8cmlmhdZRBW8tGz2/CC0JOntYcE4gp0pvkP0QSr68sxZzkER4Rp7LvSTRvsU1eAXr7VKrHhteJBOrllstb2z35p92SFcJW/T3fvYSULGvzc92kxrkTNpjj4SnCehtcYodHiSh5SSAA9X96f+ZLXO5xy7wCpoKs/OPdMo0sM= Received: by 10.78.37.7 with SMTP id k7mr955621huk.1180679802851; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.90.19 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 23:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5195a210705312336o195e6fc9x806c76bb47c3da6d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:36:42 +0800 From: "Yuanchen Zhu" Sender: yuanchen.zhu@gmail.com To: "Jon Harrop" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics Cc: "Alain Frisch" , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200706010639.53307.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <1180660974.15528.126.camel@rosella.wigram> <465FAF0B.5060700@inria.fr> <200706010639.53307.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: bc081b6db6f6659a X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 465FBE7B.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 higher-order:01 arrays:01 higher-order:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 functions:01 float:03 optimization:03 zhu:04 comparison:04 function:08 cells:08 > I agree that more optimization by the OCaml compiler might be nice (e.g. > specializing higher-order functions over float arrays) but I do not believe > it would have helped in this case. > Haven't the tests shown that specializing higher-order functions would help A LOT in this case? Running time is almost halfed when the high-order function is manually expanded using for-loops and reference cells, approaching that of MLton.