[
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: | Andrew Lenharth <andrewl@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] partial eval question |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:39:21PM +0000, William Chesters wrote:
> And that's an improvement over
>
> double pow(double x, int n) {
> double it = 1;
> while (--n >= 0) it *= x;
> return it;
> }
>
> double pow3(double x, int n) {
> return pow(x, 3);
> }
>
> in what way exactly? (If it doesn't work for you, try
> -funroll-all-loops.)
And that's an improvement over
template <int N>
inline double pow (double x) {
return x * pow<N-1>(x);
}
template<>
inline double pow<0> (double x) {
return 1.0;
}
in what way exactly? (If it doesn't work for you, try
-O2) :)
The C example relies on a fairly smart compiler to
do interprocedual analysis. The C++ example
only requires the inline keywork be honored, and you
don't need explicit pow3 pow2, you have pow<3> pow<2>
pow<any constant>.
Gives a bit more control over code generation.
Andrew
-------------------
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