From: Xavier Urbain <urbain@lri.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: speed versus C
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:37:00 +0200 (MET DST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <14332.37868.641908.893938@sun-demons> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37FC4419.6C9E3B02@maxtal.com.au>
While talking about efficiency of ocaml versus C, I have to say that
as JC-Filliatre said before concerning gmp and num, we tried several
algorithms in order to compute huge fibonacci numbers. We are as
efficient (and in one case much more) as C with nice readable code as
a bonus. Actually most of the time is spent in gmp (far better than num
in THAT case) so... I should put those files on my web page.
Concerning other problems like "solitaire" solver or emacs' mpuz
solver (without any extenal library) we have quite comparable times.
I strongly agree with Gerd Stolpmann when he write that ocaml offer
the opportunity of coding directly (I should add "naturally") more
sophisticated algorithms.
Finally remember that the ocamlopt compiler makes NO OPTIMIZATION (not
even multiplication by constant).
Try then C code compiled without flags such as -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer and so on.
Xavier
--
Xavier Urbain
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.R.I., Bât 490 mailto: Xavier.Urbain@lri.fr
Université de Paris-Sud phoneto: (33) 1 69 15 42 32
F-91405 Orsay cedex faxto: (33) 1 69 15 65 86
http://www.lri.fr/Francais/Recherche/demons/membres/urbain.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-10-07 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-10-03 21:35 Jan Brosius
1999-10-04 21:59 ` skaller
1999-10-05 23:22 ` chet
1999-10-06 10:22 ` skaller
1999-10-05 20:20 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-06 15:21 ` William Chesters
1999-10-06 22:49 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-07 10:26 ` Michel Quercia
1999-10-07 10:46 ` William Chesters
1999-10-07 15:48 ` Pierre Weis
1999-10-07 19:21 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-08 0:26 ` William Chesters
1999-10-10 16:27 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-10 20:48 ` William Chesters
1999-10-10 23:54 ` Alain Frisch
1999-10-11 17:58 ` William Chesters
1999-10-12 14:36 ` Ocaml Machine (was Re: speed versus C) Alain Frisch
1999-10-12 15:32 ` David Monniaux
1999-10-12 15:42 ` Alain Frisch
1999-10-11 19:32 ` speed versus C John Prevost
1999-10-11 20:50 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-12 20:07 ` skaller
1999-10-08 9:56 ` Pierre Weis
1999-10-07 15:25 ` Markus Mottl
1999-10-07 6:56 ` skaller
1999-10-07 12:37 ` Xavier Urbain [this message]
1999-10-07 22:18 ` Gerd Stolpmann
1999-10-08 19:15 ` skaller
1999-10-08 13:40 ` Anton Moscal
1999-10-06 7:58 ` Reply to: " Jens Olsson
1999-10-07 13:00 STARYNKEVITCH Basile
1999-10-08 6:57 Pascal Brisset
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.03.9910081713230.31666-100001@post.tepkom.ru>
1999-10-10 4:51 ` skaller
1999-10-11 9:08 ` Anton Moscal
1999-10-12 13:21 Damien Doligez
1999-10-12 20:42 ` skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=14332.37868.641908.893938@sun-demons \
--to=urbain@lri.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox