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 SAA03596; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:14:39 +0100 (MET) 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 SAA08912 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:14:38 +0100 (MET) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from hod.void.org (pD95489A5.dip.t-dialin.net [217.84.137.165]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9SHEb515389 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:14:37 +0100 (MET) Received: (from mamous@localhost) by hod.void.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00978; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:14:37 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: hod.void.org: mamous set sender to leypold@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de using -f From: "M E Leypold @ labnet" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15805.28797.298215.472767@hod.void.org> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:14:37 +0100 To: "Yaron M. Minsky" Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange slowness of input_line on mingw In-Reply-To: <1035821576.16358.38.camel@dragonfly.localdomain> References: <32026.209.9.234.140.1035468351.squirrel@dragonfly.localdomain> <20021028162614.A2882@pauillac.inria.fr> <1035821576.16358.38.camel@dragonfly.localdomain> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.4.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Yaron M. Minsky writes: > So, any other ideas, or suggestion as to how to narrow down the problem? Rather generic: Some kind of system call tracing (is that possible with mingw?), to find out, wether the things happening between userland and kernel are roughly equivalent in both cases. I mean: Same number of reads, reading chunks around the same size and so on. If not, then I'd look for a problem/difference in the C-Runtime against which the OCaml intepreter (or the executable of your programm) are linked. If things really happen in a different way deeper in userland, the GC statistics might be different. Try printing that (I personally do not believe it, but strange things happen now and then). Another Idea: Is your file large? If yes, the OCaml program might use more memory (nothing is freed until th GC hit's the first time). And another rather wild hypothesis is, that the kernel might be somehow unwilling to grant that amount of memory and takes its time. But that would mean that the OCaml program's process is blocked during a kernel call for some time. Can you take pure user cpu time in windows? If yes: try that. All this is rather generic. I'm no expert on how the OCaml system works internally or interfaces with the host system. Taking this profiles would be just an attempt to find more differences between 'wc' and the OCaml implementation to have some data for more educated guesses. Regards -- Markus ------------------- 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