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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4EEBBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:46:51 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYBANss6kzRVditkGdsb2JhbACiVQgVAQEBAQkJDAcRAx+jIIt7hRqJBwEBAwWFRgSKXoV9gzA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,237,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89106819" Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Nov 2010 17:46:50 +0100 Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so1011068qyk.18 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:46:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tDcjDc9qBEGp53cKNs9uUlinHANtnM60zUzljwfTzYc=; b=utF5wktH/jT9U+VXIUGylU5544QROpzMNbx9NAcZ1B+HgECs6+4Xr2nFgHKyRlgsB8 ww8fqsNiK01C8gZpJ4wu+6bIiREypxgkG1hJW1tJZK0AFaSBEjr8s58uoUKN+wWn/TZA 6szAzyxu0PXk1lnLh4XNGxqcIH2W5SrJSgPN4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=N8KdArmEvzFIu2UbZH01Y0/QfESOFu7EsPWQ5+2e014bR3P32IpZM1SXQU+aMpEwIs 7aOPqYsCP3CAZNCoSEukchZ2YPAWuaVcFW1mW5mAgeqi9J4Z2UJanP917WNcJsH1lQBb pCRln/IbQ0scCk4NqNeOtNQRnjkBLLCagXt5s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.84.81 with SMTP id i17mr194689qcl.215.1290444409424; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:46:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: fabrissimo@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.30.138 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:46:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <582306206.731582.1290438133628.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <582306206.731582.1290438133628.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:46:49 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bfyhwxc06xC512NN4_1LIllTzvg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? From: Fabrice Le Fessant To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= Cc: bluestorm , Gerd Stolpmann , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 runtime:01 allocates:01 edwin:98 heap:01 heap:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 minor:01 data:02 shootout:02 bytes:03 dependent:04 size:95 size:95 2010/11/22 T=F6r=F6k Edwin : > Isn't it possible for the GC to realise its doing too many collections > and increase the minor heap size on its own? Indeed, it could notice that a lot of data is being moved to the major heap, and double its size in consequence, until a maximum limit is reached. The problem is that it is the kind of things that are application dependent, and should be put in the program itself (the program would have a trigger on each minor heap collection, and, depending on the moved bytes, would increase the size of the minor heap). The problem is that the Shootout does not allow that, so the winner is the language whose runtime allocates the most memory at the beginnning... --Fabrice