From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D301ABC6B for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:22:59 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAIeRhEfUnw7UhWdsb2JhbACCNY1nAQEBCAQGDxMHmSs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,263,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="7611777" Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net ([212.159.14.212]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2008 18:22:59 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JCedl-00006r-0m for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:22:57 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml doesn't need to optimize on amd64?? Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:14:52 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200801090922.00231.ober.14@osu.edu> In-Reply-To: <200801090922.00231.ober.14@osu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801091714.52294.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 gcc:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 benchmarks:07 bit:11 bit:11 generation:12 doesn't:12 doesn't:12 optimize:12 ltd:87 think:13 On Wednesday 09 January 2008 14:22:00 Kuba Ober wrote: > Jon & al, > > why do you think that OCaml doesn't need to do certain > optimizations on amd64? OCaml does a (much) better job of code generation on AMD64. > Or does it apply only to 64 bit mode? > I run my benchmarks on amd64 (in 32 bit mode) and OCaml is worse > off than gcc. You need to run in 64-bit, of course. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e