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
Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-06-01 (09:49)
From: Richard Jones <rich@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Stephan Tolksdorf wrote:
> Richard Jones wrote:
> >Another article on the same topic:
> >
> >  http://lwn.net/Articles/82495/
> >
> 3% probably lies well in the error of margin. I find this comment much 
> more informative and in accordance with my experiences:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/167474/
> Without inlining a lot of modern C++ code would be unusable slow. As 
> Alain said, inlining allows you to use abstractions without having to 
> pay the usual penalty for it.

Good point.  It just seems to confirm that you (or a compiler) cannot
possibly do good inlining unless you have a great deal of information
about the runtime behaviour of the program.


Richard Jones
Red Hat