From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B64B7F736 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:24:35 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23: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 Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=andy.ray@ujamjar.com; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=andy.ray@ujamjar.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@www.ujamjar.com Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of andy.ray@ujamjar.com) identity=pra; client-ip=31.172.243.2; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="andy.ray@ujamjar.com"; x-sender="andy.ray@ujamjar.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of andy.ray@ujamjar.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=31.172.243.2; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="andy.ray@ujamjar.com"; x-sender="andy.ray@ujamjar.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@www.ujamjar.com) identity=helo; client-ip=31.172.243.2; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="andy.ray@ujamjar.com"; x-sender="postmaster@www.ujamjar.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BQIQCs7f1V/wLzrB9dg3hpBqxIkHoBAQWBeoV5AoEVRg0BAQEBAQEBAYEJgh2CBwEBBBIRSQIIAxALCw0CAgkdAgIhARIBBQEKEgYTCAoQh3cDEgQJqDWBMD4xi0aObQMKhGoBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEcgSKFUYR9glCCPQeCaYFDBYV8DI9chRGGCIFughORSIVzEiOBF1ABAQEBD4QCcIltAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0BQIQCs7f1V/wLzrB9dg3hpBqxIkHoBAQWBeoV5AoEVRg0BAQEBAQEBAYEJgh2CBwEBBBIRSQIIAxALCw0CAgkdAgIhARIBBQEKEgYTCAoQh3cDEgQJqDWBMD4xi0aObQMKhGoBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEcgSKFUYR9glCCPQeCaYFDBYV8DI9chRGGCIFughORSIVzEiOBF1ABAQEBD4QCcIltAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,560,1437429600"; d="scan'208";a="178383503" Received: from vm12460.vps.tagadab.com (HELO www.ujamjar.com) ([31.172.243.2]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 20 Sep 2015 01:24:34 +0200 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.ujamjar.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD19B1243FF for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:24:10 +0100 (BST) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so69227634wic.1 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:24:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.106.99 with SMTP id gt3mr5059297wib.51.1442705053714; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.46.130 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:24:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:24:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: Andy Ray To: Gabriel Scherer Cc: Ocaml Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Faster byte code Thank you for the explanation. It is interesting that changing optimisation levels is something that needs to be done so carefully. Andy On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > I believe the change that was described is the now-merged > > GPR#226: Compiling the run-time system at higher levels of C optimization > https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/226 > > From the experiments reported by Xavier, I have the impression that > most gains are about the way the C compiler optimizes the bytecode > dispatch loop, so these would be specific to running bytecode-compiled > programs. Native programs should also benefit by linking to a > better-optimized runtime system, but no noticeable gains have been > observed on these so far -- probably because a lot of the runtime code > is memory-access-bound and harder to optimize. > > Note that we don't have much performance numbers for now, so extra > data points are welcome: if you have a program spending a noticeable > time in specific parts of the runtime system, you might see a gain. > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Andy Ray wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Xavier; you mentioned during the state of ocaml 2015 talk that there >> was a 30% faster bytecode runtime coming. Is there any more >> information on this? I found this part of the talk difficult to >> follow on youtube. >> >> I am mainly interested if there will be a change in the bytecode >> runtime, or if it is related to the compiler. >> >> Regards, >> Andy >> >> -- >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs