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=1.7 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, 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 653E5BC0A for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.235]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0IFqOQe015977 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:25 +0100 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so181337nzf for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:52:24 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tswnqwTVHDuXqoNuctEZccYaPSz62+zYZ5nXoNqYJa2rFI2LyLD5TviH/c55BugbRKNK8efIy3zFcaLKb+hM3S2Ed1LTv5jqRmKxZ0IsyYMhM5Y2HTt1G+DixuBgZX4nIwUOUs9zK2ndfxA+Fg/8odxkYCdn38B4C3l6J3UcaLk= Received: by 10.35.27.1 with SMTP id e1mr1785877pyj.1169135543783; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.83.2 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:52:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6b8a91420701180752l6611b1aar1655980f1a48da33@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:23 +0100 From: "Remi Vanicat" To: "Caml List" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Benchmarking different dispatch types In-Reply-To: <45AED8C8.3080808@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <45AED8C8.3080808@gmail.com> X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 45AF97B8.001 on discorde : j-chkmail score : X : 0/20 1 0.000 -> 1 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45AF97B8.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; edgar:98 caml-list:01 remi:01 remi:01 vanicat:01 vanicat:01 types:03 optimization:03 dispatch:03 let:03 let:03 terminal:04 optimized:04 efficient:07 probably:07 2007/1/18, Edgar Friendly : > Either function calls are just that stupidly efficient, or there's some > optimization still going on. I'm guessing the second. well, here, the application are termial application that are optimized. One should probably better do something like : let f x = x + 100 let call_f () = 1 + (f 1) let o = object method f_o x = x + 100 end let call_o () = 1 + (o#f_o 1) .... to force a non terminal application.