Browse thread
[Caml-list] speed
[
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: | 2003-01-20 (23:51) |
From: | Nickolay Semyonov-Kolchin <snob@s...> |
Subject: | Re: Coyote Gulch test in Caml (was Re: [Caml-list] speed ) |
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 02:23, David Chase wrote: > > I've noticed over the years that people focus on speed over many other > things, usually because they can measure it. Well, we can measure > accuracy of transcendental functions, too, so I thought I would > ask the question. How much is enough for your application? Of the > languages being benchmarked, which one has the most accurate > transcendental functions? Is this less important than speed? > Speed and accuracy are different things. Matlab class software need accuracy, most computer games need speed. This is the reason of "-ffast-math" key in gcc. Ocaml lacks such key, and always produce ineffecient floating-point code. Nickolay ------------------- 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