On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 20 April 2004 12:48, Bernard James POPE wrote:
> 
> > Results:
> > 
> >    method          runtime (s)
> >    ---------------------------
> >    pure            0.7
> >    ffi             3.2
> >    fastMut         15
> >    ioref           23
> 
> I very strongly suspect that it is the unsafePerformIO that hurts
> performance in the fastMut case.  Otherwise this case would be around
> the same speed as the FFI example, perhaps faster.
> 
> You could try out that theory by copying the definition of
> unsafePerformIO into your code, and putting an INLINE pragma on it.  I
> think it's safe to do this in your case (it's not safe in general).

The time for fastMut with unsafePerformIO inlined is:

   3.6 sec

The code is below. Note I dropped the NOINLINE pragmas on counter and inc.
This was necessary to get the fast time (is this safe?, it gives the right
answer here but ...). Also I removed the constant 100000000 from the code 
(though it doesn't make any difference).

Thanks to all who have chipped in.

Cheers,
Bernie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{-# OPTIONS -fglasgow-exts #-}
module Main where

import GHC.IOBase hiding (unsafePerformIO)
import FastMutInt
import GHC.Base

counter :: FastMutInt
counter = unsafePerformIO newFastMutInt

inc :: Int -> ()
inc n = unsafePerformIO $
           do incFastMutIntBy counter n
              return ()

printCounter :: IO ()
printCounter
   = do val <- readFastMutInt counter
        print val

main :: IO ()
main = do line <- getLine
          writeFastMutInt counter 0
          seq (loop (read line)) printCounter

loop :: Int -> ()
loop 0 = ()
loop n = seq (inc n) (loop $! n - 1)

{-# INLINE unsafePerformIO #-}
unsafePerformIO :: IO a -> a
unsafePerformIO (IO m) = case m realWorld# of (# _, r #) -> r
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

Reply via email to