On Thu, 27 May 2004, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Christian Maeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We have put a large list in double quotes and used "read" to convert
> > the large literal string (too big for hugs, though) into the needed
> > list. This reduced compile time drastically, but I don't kno
Christian Maeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have put a large list in double quotes and used "read" to convert
> the large literal string (too big for hugs, though) into the needed
> list. This reduced compile time drastically, but I don't know how the
> runtime changed. (Also errors can only
Hi Ketil,
> For a benchmark, I'd like to include a bit of data in the form of a
> list of integer matrices (i.e. [[[Int]]]). While I have about 1 of
> them, sized about twenty square, even 100 of them takes extremely
> long to compile. Is there a trick to make this faster?
Could you put the
We have put a large list in double quotes and used "read" to convert the
large literal string (too big for hugs, though) into the needed list.
This reduced compile time drastically, but I don't know how the runtime
changed. (Also errors can only occur at runtime.)
Christian
Ketil Malde wrote:
H
GHC is indeed utterly terrible when compiling source files that contain
a lot of literal data. This seldom bites (which is why we keep
postponing doing anything about it) but when it bites, it bites badly,
as you found. There's some non-linear algorithm going on.
If any helpful person out there
Hi,
I've recently tried to compile some data into my program, and suddenly
I realize why people tend to complain about the speed of GHC.
For a benchmark, I'd like to include a bit of data in the form of a
list of integer matrices (i.e. [[[Int]]]). While I have about 1 of
them, sized about t
