[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Chris Hecker <checker@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] two unrelated questions |
>It's an embarrassing example of two distinct optimizations that >conflict, resulting in bad code :-) Ah, thanks. I have a strange talent for breaking things, I've found over the years. The first thing I try never works. I'd make a good tester. :) > The bytecode compiler performs no inlining at all. Why is this? I can think of a few reasonable arguments: - if you want speed you'll compile to native - bytecode is for size, and inlining hoses this - you tested it on real-size apps and found cache coherency made non-inlines faster - it's hard for some reason I don't understand - haven't gotten around to it yet - ??? Chris ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr