On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:54:43PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> sorry, with the "gcc -O3 -ffast-math -fstrict-aliasing -funroll-loops"
> the C version is 50 times faster than best Haskell one... it's the
> loop from C version:
I believe something similar to what I noted here is the culprit:
htt
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:18:29PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> :) even C version performs only 20 millions of additions in one second
> because this program is most limited by memory throughput - it access
> to 24 memory bytes per each addition. GHC just can't produce simple
> loops even for "
On 1/18/06, Tays Soares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to run the following sequence on ghc 6.4:
> > ghc -fglasgow-exts --make Main
>
> > ghc -o exec Main.o Exemplo1.o
>
> But I always get this error message after the second command:
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.4/libHSrts.a(Main.o)(.text+0xe): In f
Hello Bulat,
Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 8:34:54 PM, you wrote:
BZ> the only cause that this code is only 3 times slower is that C version
BZ> is really limited by memory speed. when tested on 1000-element
BZ> arrays, it is 20 times slower. i'm not yet tried SSE optimization for
BZ> gcc ;)
sorr
I'm trying to run the following sequence on ghc 6.4: > ghc -fglasgow-exts --make Main> ghc -o exec Main.o Exemplo1.oBut I always get this error message after the second command:/usr/lib/ghc-6.4/libHSrts.a(Main.o)(.text+0xe): In function `main':: undefined reference to `__stginit_ZCMain'/usr/lib/g
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 5:31:25 PM, you wrote:
>> 2) generating random values takes about 1.5-2 seconds by itself.
>> Haskell's RNG is very different from C's one
SM> I squeezed a bit more out (see attached).
> x `seq` v `seq` return ()
it's new trick for me :) now
It'll be the HEAD, when I commit; I'll send a message.
SImon
| -Original Message-
| From: Christian Maeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: 18 January 2006 16:18
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: GHC Users Mailing List
| Subject: Re: Lexically scoped type variables
|
| Simon Peyton-Jones w
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm very interested to know whether you like it or hate it.
In the latter case, I'd also like to know whether you also
have programs that will be broken by the change.
I don't use GADTs yet and I assume this change will not (seriously)
break our code, but let me/us k
Hello Malcolm,
Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 4:22:23 PM, you wrote:
>> I'm running GHC and GCC head-to-head on the task of adding a bunch of
>> long IOUArray-Vectors really fast. My machine is a Linux-ppc PowerBook
>> and gets a runtime for the GHC-compiled binary that's about 10x as long
>> as for
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 3:33:40 PM, you wrote:
SMH> and gets a runtime for the GHC-compiled binary that's about 10x as long
SMH> as for GCC. Simon M. tells me this should be much better. Here are the
attached version is only 5 times slower :) please note that
1) u
Hello Sven,
Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 3:33:40 PM, you wrote:
SMH> and gets a runtime for the GHC-compiled binary that's about 10x as long
SMH> as for GCC. Simon M. tells me this should be much better. Here are the
attached version is only 5 times slower :) please note that
1) unsafeRead/Wri
Sven Moritz Hallberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running GHC and GCC head-to-head on the task of adding a bunch of
> long IOUArray-Vectors really fast. My machine is a Linux-ppc PowerBook
> and gets a runtime for the GHC-compiled binary that's about 10x as long
> as for GCC.
Is it possible
Hi List,
I'm running GHC and GCC head-to-head on the task of adding a bunch of
long IOUArray-Vectors really fast. My machine is a Linux-ppc PowerBook
and gets a runtime for the GHC-compiled binary that's about 10x as long
as for GCC. Simon M. tells me this should be much better. Here are the
preci
Hello Johannes,
Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 5:36:22 PM, you wrote:
JW> On the syntax of type signatures: I'd like to be able to write e. g.
JW> do
JW> x :: Int <- randomRIO ( 0, 10 )
JW> print x
JW> Currently I have to put ( x :: Int ) in parentheses. Is this necessary?
moreover, syntax
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
I can't remember where the rest of the ghc conversion process has
reached - is it also about ready to switch over to darcs-as-master yet?
I was going to send a mail out about this, yes. We're ready to switch
now, I believe. Is this going to cause difficulties for anyo
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Meanwhile, I noted that the HaXml repo on darcs.haskell.org seems
> > to be a verbatim copy of the darcs repo at York.
>
> Ahh. You are correct.
>
> Re-converting now, since you've presumably committed patches to the
> darcs side, is probably not goi
16 matches
Mail list logo
