Browse thread
Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics
-
Yuanchen Zhu
- Jon Harrop
- Daniel_Bünzli
- Christophe Raffalli
- Christophe Raffalli
[
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: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics |
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:09:27PM +1000, skaller wrote: > But still, the algorithm is crude and I found it necessary > to allow: > > fun f ... // maybe inline > inline fun f // try REALLY HARD to inline > noinline fun f // never inline Actually it's more useful to control the inlining of function when they are applied, rather than when they are defined. You probably only want f to be inlined in a few known places, and not inlined the rest of the time (unless f is extremely trivial). In more general terms, it was found that turning off inlining in the Linux kernel reduced the code size by 25%: http://lwn.net/Articles/166172/ I bet that actually improved performance too, but unfortunately in the article above they don't measure that. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat