On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:06:48PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Right, this occurred to me too. Alternatively we could have the strictness
> analyser represent a strict enumeration by Int# (I believe there's a ticket
> for this).
>
> I think when we discussed this for GHC the conclusion was tha
John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:39AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance, even
if you only do it on Ints for example. If you end up pulling out those
fields and passing the Int to a lazy function, the Int will be re-
John Meacham wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:39AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance, even
>> if you only do it on Ints for example. If you end up pulling out those
>> fields and passing the Int to a lazy function, the Int wil
Hi
So to summarise this thread "compile with -O2", unless you want to
start looking at specific programs and checking how the flags perform
etc.
Thanks,
Neil
On 10/20/06, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Simon,
Friday, October 20, 2006, 3:12:29 PM, you wrote:
-O2 -funbo
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:39AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance, even
> if you only do it on Ints for example. If you end up pulling out those
> fields and passing the Int to a lazy function, the Int will be re-boxed
> each tim
Hello Simon,
Friday, October 20, 2006, 3:12:29 PM, you wrote:
-O2 -funbox-strict-fields
>>> I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance,
>>
>> we search for solution that improves performance ON AVERAGE
> Not really: would you turn on an optimisation that make
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> Friday, October 20, 2006, 1:38:39 PM, you wrote:
>
>>> -O2 -funbox-strict-fields
>>>
>> I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance,
>
> we search for solution that improves performance ON AVERAGE
Not really: would you turn on a
Hello Simon,
Friday, October 20, 2006, 1:38:39 PM, you wrote:
>> -O2 -funbox-strict-fields
>>
> I'm not sure that -funbox-strict-fields always improves performance,
we search for solution that improves performance ON AVERAGE
> I like
>-O2 -fliberate-case-threshold=30
> but anything other
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 6:40:54 PM, you wrote:
These days -O2, which invokes the SpecConstr pass, can have a big
effect, but only on some programs.
it also enables -optc-O2. so, answering Neil's question:
-O2 -funbox-strict-fields
(sidenote to SPJ:
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 21:10 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> btw, writing this message i thought that
> -fconvert-strings-to-ByteStrings option will give a significant boost
> to many programs without rewriting them :)
This kind of data refinement has a side condition on the strictness of
the func
Hello Simon,
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 6:40:54 PM, you wrote:
> These days -O2, which invokes the SpecConstr pass, can have a big
> effect, but only on some programs.
it also enables -optc-O2. so, answering Neil's question:
-O2 -funbox-strict-fields
(sidenote to SPJ: -funbox-simple-strict-fi
Mailing List
| Subject: Re: Benchmarking GHC
|
| Hi
|
| > > One thing that IME makes a difference is -funbox-strict-fields.
It's
| > > probably better to use pragmas for this, though. Another thing to
| > > consider is garbage collection RTS flags, those can sometimes make
Hello Ketil,
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 11:05:48 AM, you wrote:
> One thing that IME makes a difference is -funbox-strict-fields. It's
> probably better to use pragmas for this, though. Another thing to
> consider is garbage collection RTS flags, those can sometimes make a
> big difference.
y
Hello Neil,
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 10:49:37 PM, you wrote:
> * At the moment, -O2 is unlikely to produce better code than -O.
ghc manual full of text that was written 10 years or more ago :)
> * When we want to go for broke, we tend to use -O2 -fvia-C
>>From this I guess the answer is "-
Hi
> One thing that IME makes a difference is -funbox-strict-fields. It's
> probably better to use pragmas for this, though. Another thing to
> consider is garbage collection RTS flags, those can sometimes make a
> big difference.
I _don't_ want to speed up a particular program by modifying
ketil+haskell:
> "Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I want to benchmark GHC vs some other Haskell compilers, what flags
> > should I use?
>
> > [...] I guess the answer is "-O2 -fvia-C"?
>
> I tend to use -O2, but haven't really tested it against plain -O.
> >From what I've seen -
"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to benchmark GHC vs some other Haskell compilers, what flags
> should I use?
> [...] I guess the answer is "-O2 -fvia-C"?
I tend to use -O2, but haven't really tested it against plain -O.
>From what I've seen -fvia-C is sometimes faster, somet
Hi,
I want to benchmark GHC vs some other Haskell compilers, what flags
should I use?
I just want whichever package of flags is "good optimisation" -
nothing unsafe, nothing that changes strictness properties, and a set
of flags that is generally applicable - but slow compilation is fine.
As far
18 matches
Mail list logo
