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 DECDDBBAF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:12:15 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqkEAGrm60xQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACBVZMSjgQVAQEWIiKtaYcjiQyFSwSKXg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,244,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89215223" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2010 01:12:15 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PL2y2-0002TW-8o for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:12:10 +0100 Received: from c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.7.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:12:10 +0100 Received: from igouy2 by c-24-4-7-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:12:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Isaac Gouy Subject: Re: Is OCaml fast? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:11:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101123.113733.2059974256209184038.Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@umons.ac.be> <066401cb8b28$a46a1740$ed3e45c0$@com> <20101123222531.GB910@annexia.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 24.4.7.10 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Ubuntu/10.10 (maverick) Firefox/3.6.12) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 precisely:01 writes:01 optimizing:03 processors:04 size:95 restriction:05 restriction:05 although:11 except:11 except:11 interesting:12 think:13 called:16 trouble:17 Richard Jones annexia.org> writes: > > Note that there is no restriction on "tuning the GC" for regex-dna. > > > > Note that there is no restriction on "tuning the GC" for any task except > > binary-trees. > > Don't you think this is a pretty ludicrous restriction? > > Tuning the GC / adjusting the size of pools or mallocs is essential > for optimizing for modern processors. I bet the C programs are doing > this, except that it won't obviously be called "tuning the GC" > although it amounts to precisely the same thing. What you say would be interesting if you'd taken the trouble to look at the C programs.