Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:56:29 +0200
From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
To: Christopher Jeris <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [caml] Closures and efficiency
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.firstname.lastname@example.org>; from Christopher Jeris on Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 06:06:28PM -0400
> Here's the nub of my question. In a typical synth architecture there are
> very many parameters which take values 0..127. If I had a function
> int_subrange_encoder: int -> int -> param_value -> bytestring
> which took the bounds of a subrange and generated an encoder function for
> values of that subrange, and then in a voice-architecture description I
> had a list of very many records each of which contained an entry
> int_subrange_encoder 0 127
> would I suddenly have six million little closures, or would the compiler
> do common-subexpression elimination on them ?
As of now, the compiler doesn't do any common subexpression
elimination. Notice that CSE over function applications is hard,
because the compiler must make sure that the function has no side-effects.
E.g. assume your function int_subrange_encoder prints something after
receiving its first two arguments:
let int_subrange_encoder lo hi =
print_string "subrange_encoder was here!";
fun param -> ...
Then, CSE would be incorrect.
An easy thing to do is to let-bind the partial applications that
let int_encoder = int_subrange_encoder 0 127
and then use "int_encoder" instead of "int_subrange_encoder 0 127"
in your descriptions.
Hope this helps,
- Xavier Leroy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:28 MET