Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Memory allocation nano-benchmark.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-02-16 (08:20)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory allocation nano-benchmark.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 20:51 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote:

> Indeed, I'm in the "remove -unsafe" camp. Even if OCaml only hoisted bounds 
> checks in the simplest of cases, I think there would be a strong case for 
> removing this option.

As far as I can tell OCaml *never* eliminates or hoists bounds checks
(or any other repetitive operation), even in the simplest of cases.  It
does explicitly use unsafe operations in the standard library, though.

ocamlopt doesn't really perform a lot of optimizations.  The most
significant ones (inlining, constant folding/value propagation, direct
calls) appear to be done in a single pass (asmcomp/