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: | 2002-08-19 (21:17) |
From: | malc <malc@p...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Inlining across functors (was: O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark) |
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] -- 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