From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA03205; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:28:13 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA02266 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:28:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i68IS9SH000623 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:28:10 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp214-48.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [203.122.214.48]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i68IRlHY004298; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 03:58:03 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Does Caml have slow arithmetics ? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Markus Mottl Cc: Alex Baretta , ocaml In-Reply-To: <20040708155148.GA21304@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> References: <20040707091308.GA26172@bourg.inria.fr> <20040707145803.GB27498@yquem.inria.fr> <1089227778.29648.81.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040708034455.GB29942@davidb.org> <40ED190E.3080005@ps.uni-sb.de> <20040708140408.GA2386@davidb.org> <20040708163653.A1260@beaune.inria.fr> <40ED6424.7090903@baretta.com> <20040708155148.GA21304@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089311266.29648.310.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 09 Jul 2004 04:27:46 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40ED9239.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 arithmetics:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 closures:01 recursion:01 recursion:01 inlining:01 9660:01 glebe:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 afaik:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 01:51, Markus Mottl wrote: > AFAIK, > the OCaml compiler generates closures on the heap to work around this, > but only in cases where the recursion is obvious (self-tail calls). > Hm, shouldn't be too difficult to extend this to mutual recursion? > Or does OCaml already do this? one level of inlining would achieve this for two functions -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners