I thought I was mostly passing on the common wisdom about the Num library.
 I didn't test it myself, but the numerix documentation has some
performance numbers which make the Big_int part of Num look quite weak
compared to GMP and Numerix  --- it came up as the loser over both in most
cases, especially for large sizes.   You can find it on Michel Quercia's
page.  But I don't know much about Num's performance outside of Michel's
results, and I'm open to being corrected.
y

>> Num is by all accounts a pretty mediocre bignum implementation.
>> There's also mlgmp, which is an interface to GMP.  I haven't used it,
>> but GMP is fast.  There's also Numerix, which I have used. Numerix at
>> least at one point was a good deal faster than GMP in many cases, and
>> is very easy to use.  I'm not sure how GMP and Numerix compare in
>> terms of speed these days, since GMP has seen more development and
>> Numerix has not.
>> y
>
> I'm afraid this is a bit rough, not a fair scientific study.
>
> Once more, just one question to you: which layer of the Num library had
> you benchmarked ?
>
> Pierre Weis
>
> INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr,
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/


-- 
|--------/            Yaron M. Minsky              \--------|
|--------\ http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/yminsky/ /--------|

Open PGP --- KeyID B1FFD916 (new key as of Dec 4th)
Fingerprint: 5BF6 83E1 0CE3 1043 95D8 F8D5 9F12 B3A9 B1FF D916



-------------------
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