Did you print it? I'm using same code with ghc --make -O2 and it takes forever to finish.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Duncan Coutts <duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 16:42 -0800, drblanco wrote: > >> I do already have the number I wanted, but was wondering how this could be >> made faster, or even why it's so slow. This is all on GHC 6.8.3 under OS X >> Intel, using ghc -O2. > > I'm not exactly sure what's different, but for me it works pretty well. > I put back in the Int64 type signature. > >> For comparison, the C code below runs in <1 second. > > You've got a faster machine than me :-) > > I compiled both the Haskell and C versions to standalone executables > with ghc/gcc -O2 and ran them with time. > > C version: > $ time ./circ > 3141592649589764829 > > real 0m2.430s > user 0m2.428s > sys 0m0.000s > > Haskell version: > time ./circ2 > 3141592653589764829 > > real 0m2.753s > user 0m2.756s > sys 0m0.000s > > > Not too bad I'd say! :-) > > I was using ghc-6.10 for this test. It would appear that ghc-6.8 is a > bit slower, I get: > > 3141592653589764829 > > real 0m5.767s > user 0m5.768s > sys 0m0.000s > > Now the other difference is that I'm using a 64bit machine so perhaps > ghc just produces terrible code for Int64 on 32bit machines. > > Duncan > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe