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 PAA08235; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:41:37 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA08286 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:41:37 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA26480 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 01:01:54 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7IMxmj21528
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:59:53 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from markus@localhost)
	by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id AAA09729;
	Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:59:02 +0200
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:59:02 +0200
From: Markus Mottl <markus@oefai.at>
To: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
Cc: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] O'Caml vs C++: a little benchmark
Message-ID: <20020818225902.GB9357@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at>
Mail-Followup-To: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>,
	caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <200208181716.NAA10426@hickory.cc.columbia.edu> <20020818191613.GC8185@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <200208181957.PAA08736@hickory.cc.columbia.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200208181957.PAA08736@hickory.cc.columbia.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Oleg wrote:
> On my machine/OS (Linux 2.4), user and real time are usually the same for 
> ocaml, but can differ somewhat for C++ (probably because malloc/free is done 
> by the kernel or something, I wouldn't know). Had I used user time, it would 
> have steered the results in favor of C++ a little more in some cases.

And deteriorated it in others:

  lists
  1.480
  0.650
  2.400
  arrays
  0.380
  3.040
  rev
  0.490
  0.040
  memory
  0.600
  2.000
  tree
  1.280
  2.750

Btw., the last timing of the tree is a result of adding a type restriction
to floats to the "insert" function ("(x : float)"). This way we benefit
from unboxing.

> > Not on my machine / with my compiler. Btw., not very fair of you to
> > compare ephemeral and persistent datastructures... ;-)
> 
> I'm not! Both tree_mutable_ml.ml and tree_cpp.cpp contain mutable binary 
> trees. I think your C++ tree is slower than mine because of the old compiler
> (Or maybe it's the OS: tree allocates a lot of small objects).

Sorry, I had mistakenly thought that you used the persistent version.

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl                                             markus@oefai.at
Austrian Research Institute
for Artificial Intelligence                  http://www.oefai.at/~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