From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gclci-caml-list@m.gmane.org>
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 409AFBBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:56:06 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYLAA7j8ExQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACVDY0GexYBFiIiv0CFRwSEXI1t
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,267,1288566000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="89491392"
Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2010 19:56:04 +0100
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gclci-caml-list@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1PMPwI-00033c-Q7
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:56:02 +0100
Received: from 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com ([69.196.160.116])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:56:02 +0100
Received: from monnier by 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:56:02 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: caml-list@inria.fr
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast?
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <jwv7hfyy4zc.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria@gnu.org>
References: <AANLkTi=MFt3mGK2L_o=4=o=3FOtA2onvdvqTpw9SObYP@mail.gmail.com>
	<1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad>
	<20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de>
	<E0E134FB-BF3D-4CF2-8214-12322034662D@univ-orleans.fr>
	<loom.20101123T030109-899@post.gmane.org>
	<20101123232742.GC28768@siouxsie>
	<loom.20101124T011919-47@post.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTi=9BnGCEftg_TAaeY8s3cNnmzHuw2-UxuCX2oKX@mail.gmail.com>
	<loom.20101124T031035-994@post.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTik_j=H+1JPTmreYL2UVBn_CHWMrMjsABW7ZBL5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<jwv39qp2vn4.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.lang.caml.inria@gnu.org>
	<1534555381.33107.1290723160355.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr>
	<4CEEE852.5070101@inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69-196-160-116.dsl.teksavvy.com
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FXaho/dfMmoZSabeaOdG2DPoXXg=
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 gcs:01 benchmark:04 generally:04 problem:05 weak:06 unavoidable:07 obvious:10 weaknesses:10 think:13 think:13 question:13 umontreal:13 

>>> I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness
>>> of the current GC code.
> What makes you think that ?

I don't really understand the question: it was just stating the obvious.
OCaml's GC (including its default settings) is generally very good, but
like all GCs it has its weaknesses.  This is fundamentally unavoidable.
There should be no shame admitting that this particular case hits one of
those weak spots.


        Stefan