From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dofp.ocaml@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83D9F7ED45
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:08:04 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocBAJBk509KfVK2kGdsb2JhbABEtXQIIgEBAQEJCQ0HFAQjghgBAQEDARICLAEbEAoDAQMBCwYFCzsiAREBBQEcBi8Gh1oBAwYFmiwJA4wjgnGDeQoZJw1XiHEBBQyRKQOVLokmhH4+hAA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,467,1336341600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="164219762"
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 Jun 2012 21:08:04 +0200
Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so3622167wer.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=+8gbOx9bzkndD65f1oGj5oHKNBwPr9ZseFKRP8SdMx4=;
        b=KxP8VFrMog3tAFLsCZPWrAKtHYS25k/DLSuirVdvDGUsY3yHE+/493FUCe7j2ErO9O
         QCy3po3U1JK3cAgxz5eDacXmDChW5+gBHM9lTODLQeG2/OOEFXAi2xUMPkNrQWzt23M5
         CcoYLJE/9+Eq1ErNDTYj3cr8K/pZRPKmf3hDSuj0O0KcVWtwuO6wrwiObWbDzwl4BEMd
         v7qC14I+ZDA5idjhanZg4DnOT38JB7o+BvPloWxzArYPd5fnCKkcmpP94YZz9yOsh3lJ
         atvzSluS3qlYe4DGP6C8jy1JPjS8SqmnqdMZYnqP0uxrthExaFpNA7THKnuqe+GGu+k+
         QV9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.218.144 with SMTP id k16mr4567070wep.215.1340564884066;
 Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.1.8 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBGmeEOk_Twp+e=3PmKf9rot1ayPvTM3zEoO3FGBUddf5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHqiZ-+6DPuutYdT0dtPZWLR_ePwdjE_UaE0Jzh_WhBDOHb+0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPFanBGmeEOk_Twp+e=3PmKf9rot1ayPvTM3zEoO3FGBUddf5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:08:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHqiZ-KRTmTC4196dikqj8B5t4F84xEJTONaX4+Ns2UhjgeJtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons <dofp.ocaml@gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] print_int is too slow

    Gabriel,

> I have no time for empirical checks right now, but is the problem
> really with print_int, or does replacing (print_newline ()) by
> (print_string "\n") similarly improves performances? That may very
> well be related to when buffering happens.

You are right, it's print_newline() that is causing the problem

(> 2s) print_int !length; print_newline ()
(0.27s) printf.printf "%i\n" !length
(0.21s) print_int !length; print_string "\n"

I know that is not much of a difference... but it's the IOI training
exercises and time limits are hard.
Besides on this case that difference was larger than what I could gain
with smarter algorithms or better data structure (I tried a dozen
variants)

        Diego Olivier