caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: malc <malc@pulsesoft.com>
To: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:22:20 +0400 (MSD)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208191719100.1687-100000@home.oyster.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200208181716.NAA10426@hickory.cc.columbia.edu>

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Oleg wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I wrote a few simple benchmarks [1] assessing binaries generated by "ocamlopt 
> -unsafe -noassert" vs binaries generated by "g++-3.2 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer 
> -pedantic" on P3 Xeon, and the results were quite surprising to me.
> 
> Firstly, I expected iteration over O'Caml lists and integer arrays to be as 
> fast as iteration over std::list and std::vector<int>, respectively. Instead, 
> the benchmark gave me a speed difference of about 10x and 100x in favor of 
> C++ for lists and arrays, respectively.
> 
> Secondly, a little benchmark comparing mutable binary trees of 64 bit floats 
> also showed g++-3.2 to be about an order of magnitude faster.
> 
> What was even more surprising was that O'Caml turned out to be about 10 times 
> faster than C++ for reversing lines in a file. I did not use explicit buffers 
> of any kind in either version, and in C++ program, I used "getline", reading 
> into std::string which should provide about the same level of abstraction and 
> overflow protection as O'Caml string.
> 
> I'm curious as to where these huge differences for these small programs come 
> from.

Oh btw:
[ocaml_vs_cpp]$ g++-3.2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Os list_cpp.cpp -o list_cpp
[ocaml_vs_cpp]$ time ./list_cpp 10000 10000

real    0m1.145s
user    0m1.150s
sys     0m0.000s
[ocaml_vs_cpp]$ icc -O3 -xi list_cpp.cpp -o list_cpp
list_cpp.cpp
[ocaml_vs_cpp]$ time ./list_cpp 10000 10000

real    0m0.518s
user    0m0.510s
sys     0m0.010s

Its been noted elsewhere that GCC tends to produce better code(at least 
for AMD's) when invoked with -Os instead of -O2 (where -Os is really an
-O2 _plus_ optimize for size). And Intel's compiler (6.0) really shines
here. Draw your own conclusions.

-- 
mailto:malc@pulsesoft.com

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-08-19 13:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-08-18 17:17 Oleg
2002-08-18 18:00 ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:06   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 21:37     ` William Chesters
2002-08-19 13:02   ` Xavier Leroy
2002-08-19 13:58     ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-19 21:16       ` malc
2002-08-19 22:06         ` [Caml-list] Specialization (was: Inlining across functors) Thorsten Ohl
2002-08-20  6:35           ` [Caml-list] " malc
2002-08-20  6:25         ` [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) malc
2002-08-19 14:39     ` [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark Oleg
2002-08-19 15:15     ` William Chesters
2002-08-18 19:16 ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-18 19:58   ` Oleg
2002-08-18 22:59     ` Markus Mottl
2002-08-19 13:12 ` malc
2002-08-19 13:22 ` malc [this message]
2002-08-23 21:05 ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-23 21:35   ` Oleg
2002-08-28 13:47     ` John Max Skaller
2002-08-28 14:34       ` Alain Frisch
2002-08-28 17:23       ` inlining tail-recursive functions (Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) Oleg
2002-08-31  1:13         ` John Max Skaller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0208191719100.1687-100000@home.oyster.ru \
    --to=malc@pulsesoft.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).