[
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: | Jon Harrop <jdh30@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Functors |
On Monday 03 May 2004 17:02, Julien Signoles wrote:
> As far as I test ocamldefun, performance improvement is very dependent of
> the application. Mainly, the defunctorized code is generally much more
> efficient than the code with functors if
> (1) some functions are not inlined due to functors; and
> (2) these functions are called very often.
> Generally, in the others case, the defunctorization do not improve
> performance a lot.
Absolutely, but it can result in a huge performance increase in some cases.
Although these cases may seem to be insignificant to most people round these
parts, I believe they would be a make-or-break for someone considering ocaml
for numerical work. The most obvious example would be to use functors to
partially specialise code for a primitive vector or geometric type. When I
did something equivalent in C++ using templates I saw a 2-3 times performance
improvement. I think it would be a shame if people had to resort to using
"cat" to build their ocaml source files before compiling...
> Some SML compilers include a defunctorizer... But, in a lot of cases,
> functors do not reduce performance a lot (as explained above). Morever,
> static analysis tools do not generally correctly work on functorized
> programs: so a source-to-source defunctorizer as ocamldefun can be used
> by these tools while a defunctorizer directly included in the compiler
> cannot. So i'm not sure including a defunctorizer in the compiler is a
> good thing...
I didn't mean including the defunctorizor in the compiler, just the
functionality which it provides. Perhaps I am mistaken, but can these
optimisations not be done after all of the analysis, as a relatively simple
extension to the current inlining optimisations?
I was afraid that the ocamldefun example might be out of date so I wrote my
own little version (see end). To my surprise, this example runs 15-18 times
slower when generated via a functor! I'd be interested to hear if other
people get similar results.
Cheers,
Jon.
module type FUNC = sig val f : int -> int -> int end
module Func : FUNC = struct let f a b = a / b end
module FuncFunc = functor (F : FUNC) -> struct let f = F.f end
module MyFunc = FuncFunc (Func)
let f1 a b = a / b
let _ =
let t = Unix.gettimeofday () in
for i=0 to 1000000000 do
ignore (f1 12345 8);
done;
print_string ("Same compilation unit took "^(string_of_float
((Unix.gettimeofday ()) -. t)));
print_newline ();
let t = Unix.gettimeofday () in
for i=0 to 1000000000 do
ignore (MyFunc.f 12345 8);
done;
print_string ("Same compilation unit took "^(string_of_float
((Unix.gettimeofday ()) -. t)));
print_newline ();
-------------------
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