English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Benchmark] NBody
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-02-08 (10:11)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [Benchmark] NBody
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, skaller wrote:
> But the types in your record are mutable, and so it can't
> possibly work.
> In particular, given two arrays of a record type R containing
> a mutable field M, the arrays MUST uses boxes or modifications
> to M in a shared record wouldn't be shared.

You're apparently talking about an array of records (which obviously
contains pointers to the records), but the issue (I think) was the
records themselves, which store floats unboxed if they contain nothing

I'm not sure that the data set in this case is large enough that giving
up abstraction and combining things into a single array would make a big
difference.  It's also not what the Java program being compared to did.