Browse thread
[Caml-list] Object-oriented access bottleneck
[
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: | 2003-12-08 (20:51) |
From: | skaller <skaller@o...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Object-oriented access bottleneck |
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 06:30, Brian Hurt wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote: > I actually question the value of inlining as a performance improvement, > unless it leads to other signifigant optimizations. Hmm. A block of n instructions containing a call to a block of m instructions is typically n + 1 + m + 1 instructions: at least a call and return are saved, even with no parameters. I guess your analysis might be right if a function is called more than once .. but for a single call, inlining surely must be better. In C++ there is no doubt that inlining is not just an optimisation but a mandatory feature: several classes of code, including wrappers (eg smart pointers) and of course constructors, require inlining or the coding style is useless. Of course, this is at a higher level than machine code subroutine inlining .. a lot more than just 2 instructions are saved (for example, default constructors are often NOPs ..) ------------------- 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