From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA08866; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:55:25 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA09670 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:55:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx01.uni-tuebingen.de (mx01.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.11]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h2REtNX03149 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:55:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from juist (semeai.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.15.66]) by mx01.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2REtL91012420 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:55:22 +0100 Received: from falk by juist with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18yYmm-0007W7-00 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:55:20 +0100 X-Face: "iUeUu$b*W_"w?tV83Y3*r:`rh&dRv}$YnZ3,LVeCZSYVuf[Gpo*5%_=/\_!gc_,SS}[~xZ wY77I-M)xHIx:2f56g%/`SOw"Dx%4Xq0&f\Tj~>|QR|vGlU}TBYhiG(K:2 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] DFT in OCaml vs. C References: <3E82A960.2070707@ucdavis.edu> <20030327153247.A5015@pauillac.inria.fr> From: Falk Hueffner Date: 27 Mar 2003 15:55:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030327153247.A5015@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: <877kakkgfc.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.5 (cabbage) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.0.8; AVE 6.18.0.3; VDF 6.18.0.19 X-Spam: no; 0.00; falk:01 hueffner:01 caml-list:01 timings:01 386,:01 3.06.:01 ocaml:01 writes:01 variant:02 800:95 hmm:05 alpha:07 i'm:07 measured:08 factor:09 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy writes: > It can be done, but not on a Pentium 3. Here are my timings: > > Pentium 4 Pentium 4 SSE2 Alpha 21264 > (2 GHz) (2 GHz) (500 MHz) > > C 20 20 36 > OCaml (your code) 113 40 52 > OCaml (variant 1) 90 26 40 > OCaml (variant 2) 72 38 100 Hmm, on an Alpha with 800 MHz, I measured 25 seconds C versus 69 seconds Ocaml, i. e. a factor of 2.8 instead of 1.4... does your version contain optimizations for non-i386, too? I'm using 3.06. -- Falk ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners