English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] two unrelated questions
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-04-26 (22:33)
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
- ???


To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr