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 WAA00096; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:06:18 +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 WAA01047 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:06:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp1.pp.htv.fi (smtp1.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.119]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hB8L6F123359 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:06:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from posti.pp.htv.fi (posti.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.50]) by smtp1.pp.htv.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7016680C0C; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:06:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from oro (aka.pp.htv.fi [213.243.183.115]) by posti.pp.htv.fi (8.11.1 (Revision 1.5+JAGae91741+JAGae92668) /8.11.1) with ESMTP id hB8L6FT06293; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:06:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from naked by oro with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATSa6-00069W-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:06:14 +0200 To: Brian Hurt Cc: Ocaml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Object-oriented access bottleneck References: From: Nuutti Kotivuori Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:06:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Brian Hurt's message of "Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:37:17 -0600 (CST)") Message-ID: <87d6azauk9.fsf@naked.iki.fi> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bottleneck:01 inlined:01 foo:01 ocaml's:01 c's:01 -inline:01 inlining:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 wrote:03 guess:06 brian:06 iki:07 despite:07 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Brian Hurt wrote: > - Despite my best efforts, ocaml inlined (and removed) the call to > foo. In general this is good, but it did defeat my efforts to time > how long a direct function call took. For some reason it didn't > also eliminate the for loops. If I had to guess, Ocaml's call to a > known function is about the same speed as C's. I am not certain what it does, but did you try 'ocamlopt -inline -1 ...'? For me, that seemed to prevent some inlining atleast. -- Naked ------------------- 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