Hello Donald,
Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote:
I think the Data.ByteString issues will be a noop soon. Its unlikely to
change much after December, when 0.9 (streams for bytestrings) is tagged
and set free.
and, indeed, then you will go back in time and include it in ghc
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
but it seems to me that construction should be able to play the
dual trick to deconstruction (which does not copy the tail,
claus.reinke:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Just a quick response, before I consider this in detail, in the stream
fusion branch of Data.ByteString cons
[just saw your reply while sending this, so perhaps there's nothing new here?
but then why the runtime difference? anyway, here goes nothing :-]
a tentative idea would be to overload create so that it produces a proper,
allocated ByteString where such is expected, but can also just pass through
dons:
claus.reinke:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Just a quick response, before I consider this in detail, in the stream
fusion branch of
On Nov 19, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Have you considered constructing your strings with unfoldr? It
should
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 17:54 +, Claus Reinke wrote:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
but it seems to me that construction should be able to play the
On Nov 19, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Have you considered constructing your strings with unfoldr? It
should
claus.reinke:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Have you considered constructing your strings with
claus.reinke:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
I noticed that ByteString is drastically slower than String if I use
cons a lot. according to the source, that is expected because of
the memcpy for the second parameter.
Have you considered constructing your strings with
10 matches
Mail list logo
