Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:11:52PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> But C calls are still 33% slower than direct access in ocaml (if one
>> doesn't use the polymorphic functions).
>
> Are you using noalloc calls?
>
> http://camltastic.blogspot.com/2008/08/tip-calling-c-functions-directly-with.html

Yes. And I looked at the bigarray module and couldn't figure out how
they differ from my own external function. Only difference I see is
the leading "%" on the external name. What does that do?

> I would love to see inline assembler supported by the compiler.
>
> Rich.

And some primitive operations on integers like sign extending and byte
swapping in the Pervasives module where the compiler emits cpu
specific code instead of a caml/C call.

MfG
        Goswin