Hello Dougal,
Monday, February 19, 2007, 3:02:30 PM, you wrote:
I suppose the ideal way to do it would be benchmarks for the (1) idiomatic
and (2) the highly tuned implementations. Then the compiler writers can
push 1 towards 2, while the pesky shootout implementers can move the
goalposts of
Following recent discussion about a cross-implementation performance
benchmark suite, based on nofib, I've gone and combined nofib with the
great language shootout programs, and rewritten the build system to
support cross implementation measurements.
The result is:
nobench
Hi Dons,
nobench
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench.html
Yhc is consistently half the speed of nhc, whereas in our tests, its
typically 20% faster. Can you make sure you've built Yhi with -O
(scons type=release should do it). I opened a bug just a few days ago,
because I
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Following recent discussion about a cross-implementation performance
benchmark suite, based on nofib, I've gone and combined nofib with the
great language shootout programs, and rewritten the build system to
support cross implementation measurements.
Great work!
Quoth Ketil Malde, nevermore,
Wouldn't it be better to benchmark a more idiomatically correct codebase?
I suppose the ideal way to do it would be benchmarks for the (1) idiomatic
and (2) the highly tuned implementations. Then the compiler writers can
push 1 towards 2, while the pesky shootout
On 2/19/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
results are quite interesting. The most recent run is available:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/bench.results
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/bench.log
Maybe I'm missing something, but how can ghci beat ghc
felipe.lessa:
On 2/19/07, Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
results are quite interesting. The most recent run is available:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/bench.results
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/bench.log
Maybe I'm missing something, but how
ithika:
Quoth Ketil Malde, nevermore,
Wouldn't it be better to benchmark a more idiomatically correct codebase?
I suppose the ideal way to do it would be benchmarks for the (1) idiomatic
and (2) the highly tuned implementations. Then the compiler writers can
push 1 towards 2, while
Ketil.Malde:
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Following recent discussion about a cross-implementation performance
benchmark suite, based on nofib, I've gone and combined nofib with the
great language shootout programs, and rewritten the build system to
support cross implementation measurements.
Hi all,
GHC v Hugs v Yhc v NHC v ...
...Hacle Clean!
I shoved 5 of the benchmarks that Donald used through Hacle, and
compiled the outputs using version 2.1 of the Clean compiler. Results
are below.
As for the other examples, Hacle doesn't like non-Haskell98 and
translates
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:12:14PM +, Matthew Naylor wrote:
Hi all,
GHC v Hugs v Yhc v NHC v ...
...Hacle Clean!
I shoved 5 of the benchmarks that Donald used through Hacle, and
compiled the outputs using version 2.1 of the Clean compiler. Results
are below.
Submit
Hi
Well, he was willing to make concessions for Yhc brokenness (wrt importing
System.Environment - yhc's System doesn't export getArgs like the Report
says it should (first tangible result of nofib: the Yhc team has fixed it))
The second tangible result should be that Yhc runs faster than
On 19/02/07, Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second tangible result should be that Yhc runs faster than nhc.
Our internal testing originally showed a 20% speedup over nhc -
something seems to have gone wrong to slow down Yhc, so we are working
to fix this. Hopefully in a few days Yhc
13 matches
Mail list logo
