[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 1999-10-07 (15:49) |
From: | Xavier Urbain <urbain@l...> |
Subject: | Re: speed versus C |
While talking about efficiency of ocaml versus C, I have to say that as JC-Filliatre said before concerning gmp and num, we tried several algorithms in order to compute huge fibonacci numbers. We are as efficient (and in one case much more) as C with nice readable code as a bonus. Actually most of the time is spent in gmp (far better than num in THAT case) so... I should put those files on my web page. Concerning other problems like "solitaire" solver or emacs' mpuz solver (without any extenal library) we have quite comparable times. I strongly agree with Gerd Stolpmann when he write that ocaml offer the opportunity of coding directly (I should add "naturally") more sophisticated algorithms. Finally remember that the ocamlopt compiler makes NO OPTIMIZATION (not even multiplication by constant). Try then C code compiled without flags such as -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer and so on. Xavier -- Xavier Urbain --------------------------------------------------------------- L.R.I., Bât 490 mailto: Xavier.Urbain@lri.fr Université de Paris-Sud phoneto: (33) 1 69 15 42 32 F-91405 Orsay cedex faxto: (33) 1 69 15 65 86 http://www.lri.fr/Francais/Recherche/demons/membres/urbain.html ---------------------------------------------------------------