Browse thread
[Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
[
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: | malc <malc@p...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) |
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Thorsten Ohl wrote:
>
> > Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Just for the record: ocamlopt does perform inlining across
> > > compilation units (via the information stored in .cmx files). What
> > > it doesn't do, however, is inlining and specialization of recursive
> > > function definitions.
> >
> > However, it appears that it doesn't inline across functors. For
> > example, in
> snip
> >
> > Is this because the signature M can make no guarantee that op is never
> > a recursive function? Do all functor applications fall under the `no
> > inlining and specialization of recursive function definitions' clause?
>
> Yes. With http://algol.prosalg.no/~malc/code/patches/specfun.tar.gz
> (patch against 3.04) you will get this instead:
>
> *** Linearized code
> Opt_f2_72:
> A/11[%ecx] := [env/10[%ecx] + 12]
> A/12[%ecx] := [A/11[%ecx]]
> tailcall "Opt_f_62" R/0[%eax]
> R/1[%ebx]
> R/2[%ecx]
Whoops.. Again a reminder to think before posting.. The real linearized
code with specfun would be:
*** Linearized code
Opt_f_76:
n/10[%eax] := a/8[%eax] + b/9[%ebx] + -1
return R/0[%eax]
*** Linearized code
Opt_f2_84:
n/10[%eax] := a/8[%eax] + b/9[%ebx] + -1
return R/0[%eax]
(Forgot to specify -specialize on command line.. doh)
--
mailto:malc@pulsesoft.com
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners