From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yminsky@gmail.com>
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 A40F7BC8D
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:13:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.193])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0FHDLkh014500
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:13:22 +0100
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so185912wri
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:13:21 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=NkJX+KQ/K3ht83DP9s6nfWodKQ1K5I+kfyYsmnzdDbn/GAeYmuS/C5rFMlU2S2ttrs3Bs2Up+EyTp85ux1NkDTyML8xxhuMahoRt+8dEnYeD1sTvbHpxATLfQxkWHQixJGZ1lXUb2jkKHLAmzAm4fY1Sbd8ySjBQBy1JmpeQB+Y=
Received: by 10.54.44.50 with SMTP id r50mr162618wrr;
        Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.2.70 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <891bd3390501150913453772a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:13:21 -0500
From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>
Reply-To: yminsky@cs.cornell.edu
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml sums the harmonic series -- four ways, four benchmarks: floating point performance
Cc: "Will M. Farr" <farr@mit.edu>,
	shootout-list@lists.alioth.debian.org, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <20050115115519.GA11037@yquem.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3D3A6BF5-657B-11D9-A551-000393A34E82@mit.edu>
	 <20050115115519.GA11037@yquem.inria.fr>
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41E94F31.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 compiler:01 ocamlopt:01 unboxed:01 surprising:01 compiler:01 unboxing:01 inlining:01 inlined:01 unboxed:01 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.0
X-Spam-Level: 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:55:19 +0100, Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> wrote:

> The following slight modification of your code generates asm code that
> is closest to what a C compiler would produce:
> 
> let sum_harmonic5 n =
>   let sum = ref 1.0 in
>   let ifloat = ref 2.0 in
>     for i = 2 to n do
>       sum := !sum +. 1.0/.(!ifloat);
>       ifloat := !ifloat +. 1.0
>     done;
>     !sum +. 0.0;;
> 
> The + 0.0 at the end is ugly but convinces ocamlopt that !sum is best
> kept unboxed during the loop.

That last comment is very interesting and surprising to me.  I've
looked over the optimization suggestions for the compiler, and I don't
understand why that last +. convinces the compiler to unbox sum.  Can
you explain why that is?  Floating point performance is important to
me, and I'd like to get a better grasp on it.

(As a general matter, it would be nice to have some tools to
understand things like unboxing and inlining a little better.  For
example, it would be great to have something akin to -dtypes that
outputs information with which one could check whether a certain
function call is inlined, or whether a certain float is unboxed.)

y