Speed versus C
Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:30:10 -0800 (PST)
> What is MLton's efficience versus C?
Here are the times in seconds for a few small benchmarks on my 400 MhZ
Pentium II. For benchmarks that use arrays, I have also included the
time when compiling with the -unsafe flag, which turns off bounds
gcc -O2 mlton mlton -unsafe
------- ----- -------------
fft 18.69 31.66 28.69
fib 7.44 9.97
matrix mult 2.65 13.27 6.15
quicksort 17.69 27.80 20.94
tak 15.86 21.99
As you can see mlton -unsafe is within a factor of 2 on all the
benchmarks except matrix multiply, which is 2.3 times slower.
> P.S. As I understand the CPS (continuation passing style ) used to implement
> SML/NJ will be abandoned as it did not produce small and fast standalone
I don't think that CPS is entirely the cause of this. Although, I do
believe that their use of the heap for allocating stack frames does
slow them down. As to size, I think they just haven't gone to enough
effort to clean up the exported heaps.
> Is MLton portable to other OSes?
Yes, but it hasn't been done yet. Right now, there is a Windows port
underway by email@example.com, using a crosscompiler from
Linux (http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/SDL/Xmingw32/). He just
started, so I'm not sure how it will turn out.
I am not aware of any other porting efforts. The current focus of our
development efforts are improving the performance with an X86 native
backend and adding functionality.