On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 22:43 -0500, Jefferson Heard wrote:
> It was suggested that I might derive some performance benefit from using lazy
> bytestrings in my tokenizer instead of regular strings. Here's the code that
> I've tried. Note that I've hacked the "basic" wrapper code in the Lazy
> ve
On a related topic, I think Duncan Coutts and Lennart Kolmodin have
worked on adding ByteString support to Alex. It seems to be available in
the current darcs version of Alex. You many want to check with them for
more details.
/Björn
Jefferson Heard wrote:
It was suggested that I might derive
Yes, that was a typo :-)
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 22:54, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:43:11PM -0500, Jefferson Heard wrote:
> > I am running GHC 2.6 now, and am using -O3 as my optimization parameter.
> > I'm
>
> I think you will get much better performance with GHC 6.6.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:43:11PM -0500, Jefferson Heard wrote:
> I am running GHC 2.6 now, and am using -O3 as my optimization parameter. I'm
I think you will get much better performance with GHC 6.6. The optimizer has
been
improved a *lot* in the last 10 years.
(I hope that was a typo!!)
jeff:
> It was suggested that I might derive some performance benefit from using lazy
> bytestrings in my tokenizer instead of regular strings. Here's the code that
> I've tried. Note that I've hacked the "basic" wrapper code in the Lazy
> version, so the code should be all but the same. The
It was suggested that I might derive some performance benefit from using lazy
bytestrings in my tokenizer instead of regular strings. Here's the code that
I've tried. Note that I've hacked the "basic" wrapper code in the Lazy
version, so the code should be all but the same. The only thing I h
