jon: > On Thursday 20 December 2007 19:02, Don Stewart wrote: > > Ok, so I should revive nobench then, I suspect. > > > > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html > > > > that kind of thing? > > Many of those benchmarks look good. > > However, I suggest avoiding trivially reducible problems like computing > constants (e, pi, primes, fib) and redundant operations (binary trees). Make > sure programs accept a non-trivial input (even if it is just an int over a > wide range). Avoid unnecessary repeats (e.g. atom.hs). This will mean that > transformations that improve performance on the benchmark suite will be more > likely to improve the performance of real programs.
This is a long recognised issue. The benchmark suite is a variant of the nofib suite, described here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/partain93nofib.html which breaks the programs up into imaginary, spectral and real categories of programs. > I would recommend adding: > > 1. FFT. > > 2. Graph traversal, e.g. "n"th-nearest neighbor. > > These should be <100LOC each. Sounds good. Patches can be sent via darcs. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe