Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread oliver
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:10:36AM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote: On 11/29/2010 04:33 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote: Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel: Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: You use shared

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Eray Ozkural
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote: (A thread-specific GC for thread-specific variables would help here, making global locks only necessary when accessing global used variables. But I don't know if such a way would be possible without changing the GC-stuff

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Stephan Houben
On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote: There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then you obviously have separated processes and also in each process your own ocaml-program with it's own GC running... ...neatly sidestepping the problem that the GC needs to lock

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 13:55 +0100 schrieb oli...@first.in-berlin.de: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:10:36AM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote: On 11/29/2010 04:33 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote: Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 15:04 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben: On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote: There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then you obviously have separated processes and also in each process your own ocaml-program with it's own GC

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread oliver
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:04:32PM +0100, Stephan Houben wrote: On 11/30/2010 12:55 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote: There is one problem with this... when you have forked, then you obviously have separated processes and also in each process your own ocaml-program with it's own GC

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Eray Ozkural
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM, oli...@first.in-berlin.de wrote: And here I see a thread-specific GC as a solution. It seems to me that this way was not thought about before, and people thought about changing the GC to be able to handle multiple threads. Instead I mean: each thread that is

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Stephan Houben
On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows, actually. The problem is more that your whole program needs then to be restructured - multi-processing implies a process model (which is the master, which are the workers). With

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 16:30 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben: On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows, actually. The problem is more that your whole program needs then to be restructured - multi-processing implies

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread oliver
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0100, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: Am Dienstag, den 30.11.2010, 16:30 +0100 schrieb Stephan Houben: On 11/30/2010 02:22 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: I don't think this is the reason. Many people can ignore Windows, actually. The problem is more that your

RE: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-30 Thread Jon Harrop
What would be responsible for collecting the shared heap? Cheers, Jon. Eray wrote: Seconded, why is this not possible? That is to say, why cannot each thread maintain a separate GC, if so desired? ___ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription

RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-29 Thread Jon Harrop
November 2010 07:33 To: oli...@first.in-berlin.de Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? Le 28/11/2010 19:17, oli...@first.in-berlin.de a écrit : On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Christophe Raffalli wrote: Hello, To the extent that this rule is the same

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-29 Thread oliver
-list- boun...@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Christophe Raffalli Sent: 29 November 2010 07:33 To: oli...@first.in-berlin.de Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? Le 28/11/2010 19:17, oli...@first.in-berlin.de a écrit : On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:58:55PM +0100

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-29 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb oli...@first.in-berlin.de: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: [...] The main problem was that other languages have bigger standard libraries, whereas OCaml has a very small one (just what is needed to compile

Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-29 Thread Oliver Bandel
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb oli...@first.in-berlin.de: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: [...] The main problem was that other languages have bigger standard libraries, whereas OCaml has a

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-29 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel: Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb oli...@first.in-berlin.de: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: [...] The main problem was

Re: Threading and SharedMem (Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?)

2010-11-29 Thread Oliver Bandel
Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Montag, den 29.11.2010, 17:12 +0100 schrieb Oliver Bandel: Zitat von Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de: Am Sonntag, den 28.11.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb oli...@first.in-berlin.de: On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-28 Thread oliver
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: [...] The main problem was that other languages have bigger standard libraries, whereas OCaml has a very small one (just what is needed to compile the compiler, actually). In many problems, you could benefit from using a very

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-28 Thread oliver
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Christophe Raffalli wrote: Hello, To the extent that this rule is the same for all languages and that most languages on the shootout are also garbage collected, I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness of the current GC

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-28 Thread Christophe Raffalli
Le 28/11/2010 19:17, oli...@first.in-berlin.de a écrit : On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Christophe Raffalli wrote: Hello, To the extent that this rule is the same for all languages and that most languages on the shootout are also garbage collected, I think OCaml's problem with this

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-27 Thread Christophe Raffalli
Hello, To the extent that this rule is the same for all languages and that most languages on the shootout are also garbage collected, I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness of the current GC code. This is untrue ... the bintree example, is just bad in OCaml because

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-25 Thread Fabrice Le Fessant
On 11/25/2010 11:12 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: Stefan wrote: I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness of the current GC code. What makes you think that ? I have contributed to some of the solutions that you can find there (and some other ones were rejected because

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread Christophe Troestler
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:50:15 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: Jeff Meister nanaki at gmail.com writes: We know what your rules are for binary-trees; repeating them does not help. When Christophe TROESTLER wrongly states - OCaml is not authorized to make use of its very own library! - he shows

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread Eray Ozkural
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Christophe Troestler christophe.troestler+oc...@umh.ac.bechristophe.troestler%2boc...@umh.ac.be wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:50:15 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: Jeff Meister nanaki at gmail.com writes: We know what your rules are for binary-trees;

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread Christophe Raffalli
Hello, Here is a test of gctweak.ml on the now famous binary-tree shootout bench ... As you can see it is a 30% speed up which is not too bad, just adding a file on the compilation command line ! I reattached the file, because I correct a few comments in it ... and a syntax error that is only

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread David Rajchenbach-Teller
Hey, guys. Time to stop this, please. Thanks, David On Nov 24, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Isaac Gouy wrote: Ed Keith e_d_k at yahoo.com writes: I am not asking WHAT the rules are but a JUSTIFICATION for them (which you have been incapable of providing so far). I feel no need to provide a

RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread David Allsopp
Isaac Gouy wrote: David Allsopp dra-news at metastack.com writes: -snip- Reducing an entire programming language's strengths (or weaknesses!) to a single number is just not really realistic - the truth is more complex than one single-precision floating point number (or even an array

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-24 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Gerd Stolpmann i...@gerd-stolpmann.de writes: Am Dienstag, den 23.11.2010, 17:53 + schrieb Isaac Gouy: Christophe TROESTLER Christophe.Troestler+ocaml at umh.ac.be writes: On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: C version : 12.11 secs OCaml version : 47.22

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Fabrice Le Fessant
Maybe you should read Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact In America by Cynthia Crossen ? --Fabrice Isaac Gouy wrote, On 11/23/2010 03:20 AM: Dario Teixeira darioteixeira at yahoo.com writes: -snip- There's lies, damn lies, and shootout statistics. -snip- After all, facts are facts,

RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Jon Harrop
Sent: 23 November 2010 10:38 To: igo...@yahoo.com Cc: caml-l...@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: C version : 12.11 secs OCaml version : 47.22 secs OCaml version with GC parameters tuned (interesting alternative

RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Jon Harrop
] On Behalf Of Christophe TROESTLER Sent: 23 November 2010 10:38 To: igo...@yahoo.com Cc: caml-l...@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: C version : 12.11 secs OCaml version : 47.22 secs OCaml version with GC

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Török Edwin
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:03:10 + (UTC) Isaac Gouy igo...@yahoo.com wrote: Jon Harrop jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com writes: Note that the regex-dna solution for Haskell tweaks its GC parameters via the -H command-line parameter: Note that there is no restriction on tuning

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Dienstag, den 23.11.2010, 17:53 + schrieb Isaac Gouy: Christophe TROESTLER Christophe.Troestler+ocaml at umh.ac.be writes: On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:03:48 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: C version : 12.11 secs OCaml version : 47.22 secs OCaml version with GC parameters tuned

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Gerd Stolpmann
Am Dienstag, den 23.11.2010, 20:28 + schrieb Isaac Gouy: (It would be actually interesting to compare various versions of this test with different memory management methods.) So do that comparison and publish the results. Please don't tell me what I am supposed to do. I'm not a troll

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Christophe TROESTLER
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:53:14 +, Isaac Gouy wrote: Christophe TROESTLER writes: Since you are here, please explain why C can use memory pools and vec tor instructions but tuning the GC of OCaml ― although it is part of the standard library ― is considered an “alternative”.

RE: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Jon Harrop
Yes, an answer to a better question. -Original Message- From: caml-list-boun...@yquem.inria.fr [mailto:caml-list- boun...@yquem.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Isaac Gouy Sent: 23 November 2010 18:07 To: caml-l...@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast? Jon Harrop

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Richard Jones
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 06:03:10PM +, Isaac Gouy wrote: Jon Harrop jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com writes: Note that the regex-dna solution for Haskell tweaks its GC parameters via the -H command-line parameter: Note that there is no restriction on tuning the GC for

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread oliver
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:01:33AM +, Isaac Gouy wrote: David Rajchenbach-Teller David.Teller at univ-orleans.fr writes: I can confirm that old code-snippets were removed (and that both faster solutions and environment variable tweaks were rejected). Even back in 2001, Doug

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Is OCaml fast?

2010-11-23 Thread Eray Ozkural
Hello, I think that this benchmark is lacking in the algorithms department. Where is a dynamic programming problem? A graph algorithm? Anything with non-trivial time/space complexity? Anything a little more complex than matrix product? Also, it's not uncommon to disallow low-level optimizations