I think I might have found why (or partially why) ghc is so slow on x86-64..
section 5.10 of the optimization manual
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25112.PDF
(which has a whole lot of good info for any processor, including a
whole chapter on how to writ
as an interesting tidbit, gcc now supports using vector (SIMD) types
directly as if they were normal C types in a portable way.. I wonder
how hard it would be to expose these types to the user in ghc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.2/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html
things like matricies and co
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:24:14PM -0400, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> Nice analysis. I indeed found with phc that shadow stack references
> absolutely killed performance, and I aggressively cached stack
> locations in locals, spilling to stack only when GC information
> needed to be accurate
On Monday 24 October 2005 12:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 23 October 2005 19:00, Esa Ilari Vuokko wrote:
> > I have been trying to build some Windows DLLs with
> > GHC, and I have run into some misfeatures or maybe
> > I have misunderstood how to use GHC. Any help or
> > advice would be appreciate
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On 25 October 2005 10:01, Wilhelm B. Kloke wrote:
>
> Try with splitting off: set SplitObjs=NO in your mk/build.mk.
Done with success. I just used the compiler to install darcs.
I am able to make the unregisterised .hc-bundle available on the net
for ot
Nice analysis. I indeed found with phc that shadow stack references
absolutely killed performance, and I aggressively cached stack
locations in locals, spilling to stack only when GC information
needed to be accurate. [There was a giant infrastructure to save
only live data to stack, but
(I apologize in advance if this message seems self congradulatory, but
after a long time of being disheartened by jhc only having marginal
gains over ghc, I am finally seeing some substantial benefits, many of
which are the result of optimizations that can actually be ported back
to ghc)
So, wha
