Fwd: Re: [Shootout-list] Science-related benchmarks (speedoptimisation)

[Jon Harrop]

On Thursday 28 April 2005 18:23, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> --- Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > this is a really interesting question. it does sound
> > sensible to compare
> > two compilers for the same language. but why stop
> > there? why not compare
> > the normal compiler/runtime switches (vanilla) with
> > the best possible
> > combination of compiler switches (all-flavors)?
> > because that is even
> > more interesting.
>
> Yes, this could be done.

Just out of curiosity, most of the OCaml programs seem to be compiled with 
lines like:

/usr/bin/ocamlopt -noassert -unsafe -I /usr/lib/ocaml/contrib -ccopt -O3 
-inline 100 harmonic.ml -o harmonic.ocaml_run

A lot of that is probably unnecessary. Can you use:

  ocamlopt -unsafe -inline 100 harmonic.ml -o harmonic.ocaml_run

instead?

It is also quite likely that "-unsafe" will produce no performance 
improvements on many benchmarks and "-inline 100" may slow some programs 
down.

Also, I think it would be good to require bounds checking on at least some 
benchmarks as it often requires little to no extra code but is good for 
rooting out bugs.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists