Thanks for all the feedback guys,
I already find it pretty amazing how well simple stuff expressed in a higher
level manner compiles down to something decent, and it seems like the future
is only going to get brighter. I can hardly wait... : )
In the meantime, I'll go back to trying to find t
| GHC's optimizer needs serious work. Personally, I'm rooting for the
| LHC/JHC guys, because I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that
| you need whole-program compilation with flow analysis and bucketloads
| of specialisation on the back of that to make serious progress at
| optimizing Haske
2009/5/20 Tyson Whitehead :
> 1- avoid forming the (iter xs) and (count i+1) closures by passing the
> function and the arguments instead of the function bound to the argument
>
> iter [] next i done = done
> iter (x:xs) next i done = next i x iter xs
You have already specialised at this poi
On May 19, 2009 22:17:39 Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> 2- specialize count for step = iter
>
>
>
> 3- specializing iter for next = count
>
>
>
I changed this just before sending it and managed to goof step two and three
(the specializations). The whole thing, with the correct steps two and three
