Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] speed
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Siegfried Gonzi <siegfried.gonzi@s...>
Subject: Re: Coyote Gulch test in Caml (was Re: [Caml-list] speed )
Oleg wrote:

>On Saturday 04 January 2003 01:31 pm, Xavier Leroy wrote:
>
>>Apparently, the ocamlopt-generated code
>>offers less instruction-level parallelism than the g++-generated code
>>for the float computations.  Still, I haven't really understood where
>>the factor of 2 comes from.  
>>
>
>It's been a couple of weeks. I'm wondering if you got any new insights into 
>this?
>
I am wondering whether they did analysize the Bigloo (Scheme) results:

[according to Manuel based on code by S. Gonzi; see comp.lang.scheme]

          Compiler                                              usr+usr
-----------------------------------------------------------+---------------
ocamlopt -unsafe -noassert -inline 2:                           95.01s
bigloo -Obench -jvm (jdk1.3.1):                                 55.73s
java (jdk1.3.1):                                                52.53s
bigloo -Obench -copt "-ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -O3":    40.57s
gcc -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -O3:                       38.37s

Btw: the Stalin compiler produces code (note: common Scheme operators) 
which runs faster than the C++ version even.


S. Gonzi


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