Hello Sebastian, Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:42:33 AM, you wrote:
> Bulat, please, you're missing the point. actually you are missing the point. i mirror Don's "non-attacking" style of comments on my person. are you mentioned those Don letter? sure - no > Nobody is saying that the > template-haskell trick was somehow a viable general strategy right > now that everyone should use by default. It was used as a > proof-of-concept that a simple technique can lead to massive > performance improvements - and we get numbers for how massive it > would be (beating gcc for this benchmark). sorry, but you was fooled too. the situation was the following: i wrote non-optimal code for 64-bit platforms (using 32-bit int) and Don don't corrected it. then he compiled TH-generated code via *gcc* that used "fusion" technique - the same that was used by 32-bit C++ code are you wondered why -D64 version is 8 times faster than -D8 one? it's exactly because *gcc* reduced 64 additions to just one operation. so this "fair" comparison used TH+gcc to generate faster code than gcc with improper data type definitions. if Don will fix C++ program, he will find that it's speed reduced in the same proportion - without TH tricks > > This isn't about "faking" a benchmark, it's about investigating the > reasons for why the benchmark looks they way it does, doing testing > to verify the assumptions (in this case using TH), and making > constructive suggestions (add loop-unrolling to the compiler). This > investigation tells us that in this case a compiler could beat gcc, > if only it were to do loop unrolling in the way the TH code does. That's a > result! yes, in the cases when *gcc* "fuse" loops and you don't allow it do it for C++ code but allows for Haskell - you will win > I would ask you to note the simple fact that every single > constructive message in this thread has come from people other than > you. you are ignore, though, the fact that every destructive message in this thread comes against me. it seems that it's a crime here to write about ghc speed anything but praise. in best case people will said that these tests are destructive :lol: > I hope this leads you reconsider your tone and general approach > in the future. Haskell people in general are always pretty good at > accepting criticism IME (they tend to want to fix the problem), that criticism??? cows can't fly, and ghc cannot beat gcc in 2 months. that bothers me is people that attack me just for comparing compilers head-to-head -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe