Browse thread
Memory allocation nano-benchmark.
-
Christian Szegedy
- Frédéric_Gava
- Jon Harrop
- John Prevost
[
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: | John Prevost <j.prevost@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Memory allocation nano-benchmark. |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:15:10 +0100, Christian Szegedy <szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de> wrote: > Let us look at another example where ocaml not really shines: Er. Or perhaps we should not? I could not imagine writing anything even vaguely similar to these examples in either C or in O'Caml. Not to mention the serious problem with evaluating memory allocation overhead by comparing programs that allocate massive amounts of memory but never use or release any of it. In a program that allocates many small short-lived chunks of memory, I suspect you will find that *in practice*, O'Caml performs better than C. In a program that allocates one very large chunk of memory, I suspect you will find that both C and O'Caml do a lot better when... you allocated as one very large chunk of memory (or, if need be, a *tiny* number of large chunks) instead of as many small chunks of memory. John.