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 664C4BC69 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.233]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l51EIZBk021928 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:18:37 +0200 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s1so451375nze for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:18:35 -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=EVw+TDuk178T9BWGB0i179vc6iKSbUHgJdGVJzza5hDgbk2J/GkvgHtAHS9rqIjlCjHeoxFcklKWhyFUd/N6d6TB0wXEGvbp47vhjnYSle249vgFyLPjcFmPZPFllTOP1FOD82LRZqj6/0SPplySXvPjFe8tKAHJyRzq5nI+fGQ= 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=apAOhwMXtWNmczwNcQSCRuvF4lw+AxJgzv+oBkyXE6Is/EB3cTgEBPZDhyNiWT67Dsg22HEjyJ4LabhP8o2U8/St712l9uUi2PPrweAYQdYR5ccnjsTIg2h+/w0qMh01wLFSEfIBesdj/ohMGJHGx5S0Rq0EFt+guOEn7E1FkNg= Received: by 10.114.181.1 with SMTP id d1mr1876817waf.1180707513923; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.130.2 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <604682010706010718x42221e8rde56317905f5c972@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0400 From: "Stephen Weeks" Sender: stephentweeks@gmail.com To: "Julien Signoles" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics Cc: "Jon Harrop" , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <891bd3390706010429g2ac722bfmc6932b15393a62b9@mail.gmail.com> <20070601214326.e0a939a6.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <200706011258.59177.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3cf2493a878bd057 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46602ABC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 speedup:01 inlining:01 ocamlopt:01 -inline:01 ocaml:01 caml-list:01 comparison:04 size:95 size:95 problem:05 problem:05 practice:07 cases:08 observed:09 > However, in some cases, defunctorization may produce a good speedup, > especially if you use massive inlining (e.g. ocamlopt -inline 1000). On the > contrary, defunctorization may produce cache problem because the size of the > defunctorized code may be very bigger than the size of the initial code. I've never observed this problem in practice using MLton, and don't know anyone in the MLton world who has. Has this actually been observed using the OCaml defunctorizer?