---
Haskell Weekly News
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/HWN
Issue 46 - October 24, 2006
---
Welcome to issue 46 of HWN, a weekly newsletter covering dev
Andy Adams-Moran wrote:
> Just an update: I just added slides from Howard Mansell (Credit Suisse)
> and Rishiyur Nikhil (BlueSpec).
Thanks to everyone who pointed out that there was a typo on the page;
Nikhil's slides should be downloadable now at
http://www.galois.com/cufp/
Cheers,
Andy
On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:04 PM, Andy Adams-Moran wrote:
Just an update: I just added slides from Howard Mansell (Credit
Suisse)
and Rishiyur Nikhil (BlueSpec). That URL again is:
http://www.galois.com/cufp
The BlueSpec link is broken.
Thanks,
Deborah
On 10/23/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not so sure that a newArray is faster than N copies of
> newEmptyMVar, at any rate the [MVar] approach has *no* congestion
> points
They are congestion points because each thread could co
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not so sure that a newArray is faster than N copies of
newEmptyMVar, at any rate the [MVar] approach has *no* congestion
points
They are congestion points because each thread could conceivably
attempt to putMVar at the same time as th
Audrey Tang wrote:
I hacked +RTS -N support into Pugs today; here's a short writeup:
http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2006/10/smp_paralleliza.html
Pugs's current implementation for concurrent operations on lists is
very naive:
chan<- newChan
forM ([0..] `zip` xs) $
On 10/23/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They probably are. However you get the overhead of creating the array
> (when you don't really need O(1) random access) and every thread
> signals the same semaphore which may lead to some con
On 10/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They probably are. However you get the overhead of creating the array
(when you don't really need O(1) random access) and every thread
signals the same semaphore which may lead to some congestion which
could slow things down.
You do need
Hello Audrey,
Saturday, October 21, 2006, 12:14:49 PM, you wrote:
> I hacked +RTS -N support into Pugs today; here's a short writeup:
> http://pugs.blogs.com/pugs/2006/10/smp_paralleliza.html
> Pugs's current implementation for concurrent operations on lists is
> very naive:
yes, it's na
