-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/15/10 06:41 , Daniel Fischer wrote:
> play a role. Since ghc fares pretty well on 64-bit linux (David Terei and
> Don), both, via the NCG and via C, it seems its 64-bit code generator is
> better than its 32-bit code generator :(
amd64 has more
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 12:22:24, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
> Thanks all for your answsers. I still wonder why some people get very
> different results between gcc and ghc, and some others don't. A
> difference in processor?
Architecture (32/64-bit, x86/..., ...), processor, gcc version, OS, all
Thanks all for your answsers. I still wonder why some people get very
different results between gcc and ghc, and some others don't. A
difference in processor?
I guess I will crank up a little package using criterion and producing
two executables to make sure anyone who run the benchmark use the sa
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 02:50:15, David Terei wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 20:41, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
> > ... the post is from 2008. No LLVM goodness. So I thought GHC 6.12.1
> > (not the latest and greatest HEAD) would be enough.
>
> I compiled the two programs myself out of curiosity and
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:50 PM, David Terei wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 20:41, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
>> ... the post is from 2008. No LLVM goodness. So I thought GHC 6.12.1
>> (not the latest and greatest HEAD) would be enough.
>
> I compiled the two programs myself out of curiosity and got the f
On 13 September 2010 20:41, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
> ... the post is from 2008. No LLVM goodness. So I thought GHC 6.12.1
> (not the latest and greatest HEAD) would be enough.
I compiled the two programs myself out of curiosity and got the following times.
Linux, 64bit, Ubuntu 10.10:
1e8
clang: 0.1
2010/9/13 Daniel Fischer :
> On Monday 13 September 2010 11:50:14, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
>> 2010/9/13 David Virebayre :
>> > Does it help to compile with ghc --make -O2 -funbox-strict-fields ??
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Can I assume you don't have the problem I described?
>
> Currently, GHC's native code
On Monday 13 September 2010 11:50:14, Vo Minh Thu wrote:
> 2010/9/13 David Virebayre :
> > Does it help to compile with ghc --make -O2 -funbox-strict-fields ??
>
> No, it doesn't. Can I assume you don't have the problem I described?
Currently, GHC's native code generator is not too good at optimi
2010/9/13 David Virebayre :
> Does it help to compile with ghc --make -O2 -funbox-strict-fields ??
No, it doesn't. Can I assume you don't have the problem I described?
Thanks,
Thu
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskel
Does it help to compile with ghc --make -O2 -funbox-strict-fields ??
David.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
2010/9/12 Andrew Coppin :
> Vo Minh Thu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to benchmark C/C++ and Haskell code. The goal is to
>> improve the Haskell port[0] of smallpt[1].
>>
>> To make sure my approach was reliable, I got the code of two programs
>> (one in C, the other in Haskell) from a post[2
Vo Minh Thu wrote:
Hi,
I would like to benchmark C/C++ and Haskell code. The goal is to
improve the Haskell port[0] of smallpt[1].
To make sure my approach was reliable, I got the code of two programs
(one in C, the other in Haskell) from a post[2] by Don. The code is
reproduced below. When tim
Hi,
I would like to benchmark C/C++ and Haskell code. The goal is to
improve the Haskell port[0] of smallpt[1].
To make sure my approach was reliable, I got the code of two programs
(one in C, the other in Haskell) from a post[2] by Don. The code is
reproduced below. When timing the execution of
13 matches
Mail list logo
