From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B580BB81 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:11:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8QGB3tv006192 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:11:03 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA10076 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:11:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8QGB2Xm014264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:11:02 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EJvWU-00027c-Mo for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:08:10 +0200 Received: from d225-186.d-fac.umontreal.ca ([132.204.225.186]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:08:10 +0200 Received: from monnier by d225-186.d-fac.umontreal.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:08:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: Ant: Efficiency of let/and Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:05:59 -0400 Message-ID: <87hdc724wo.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria@gnu.org> References: <20050926043240.24009.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: d225-186.d-fac.umontreal.ca User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mjk2UIe9QbJvj/7iS7SY3/CIszI= Sender: news X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43381D97.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43381D96.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; umontreal:01 semantically:01 ocamlopt:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 parallelism:01 parallelism:01 rarely:02 let:03 implicit:03 imagined:95 tries:06 uses:06 execute:07 efficiency:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > Syntactically and semantically there is no difference. I was wondering if > the ocamlopt compiler took advatange of the implicit paralellism at all. If someone tries to use such things as `and' or unspecified-argument-evaluation-order in the hopes that the compiler will extract some imagined parallelism is simply deluding himself. In some cases, the freedom to execute in any order does lead to better code, but that code rarely if ever uses any kind of parallelism. Stefan