Browse thread
[Caml-list] interesting array efficiency observations
[
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: | Yamagata Yoriyuki <yoriyuki@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] interesting array efficiency observations |
From: Christophe TROESTLER <Christophe.Troestler@umh.ac.be>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] interesting array efficiency observations
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 02:25:35 +0200 (CEST)
> On Sun, 09 May 2004, Yamagata Yoriyuki <yoriyuki@mbg.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> > From: briand@aracnet.com
> >
> > > I was investigating the use of 1-D bigarray's vs Array and noticed
> > > that the 1-D bigarray using c_layout seems to be slower than Array.
> >
> > Yes, it is expected, since a.{j} expands a call of a C function, while
> > a.(j) expands inlined assembly codes.
>
> Is it? Ocamlopt does inline the call when the bigarray type is fully
> known, doesn't it.
Ah... You are right. Thanks.
$ cat test.ml
open Bigarray
type t = (int32, int32_elt, c_layout) Array1.t
let get (a:t) i = a.{i}
$ cat test.s
(... snip ...)
Test__get_184:
.L100:
movl %eax, %edx
.L101: movl young_ptr, %eax
subl $12, %eax
movl %eax, young_ptr
cmpl young_limit, %eax
jb .L102
leal 4(%eax), %eax
movl $2303, -4(%eax)
movl $int32_ops, (%eax)
sarl $1, %ebx
movl 20(%edx), %ecx
cmpl %ebx, %ecx
jbe .L104
movl 4(%edx), %ecx
movl (%ecx, %ebx, 4), %ebx
movl %ebx, 4(%eax)
ret
.L102: call caml_call_gc
.L103: jmp .L101
.L104: call caml_array_bound_error
.text
.align 16
.globl Test__entry
.type Test__entry,@function
-------------------
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