bulat.ziganshin:
> Hello John,
>
> Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:42:24 AM, you wrote:
>
> >> this is true for *application* code, but for codec you may have lots of
> >> code that just compute, compute, compute
>
> > Yes indeed. If there is code like this out there for haskell, I would
> > love
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:42:24 AM, you wrote:
>> this is true for *application* code, but for codec you may have lots of
>> code that just compute, compute, compute
> Yes indeed. If there is code like this out there for haskell, I would
> love to add it as a test case for jhc.
But it is very misleading. It would be nice to have a log or
something similar to inform about the current state
://repetae.net/computer/jhc/jhc.shtml
> That is just there for historical reasons as my initial announcement.
>
> more up to date info is
>
> in the manual: http://repetae.net/computer
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 01:20:14AM +0100, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> John,
> please update the section "All is not well in jhc-land" because now
> things are better isn´t?
Ah, are you refering to this page?
http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/jhc.shtml
That is just there for historical reasons as my
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 03:21:03AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> >> what is "substantial size"? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
> >> probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
> >> of thousands LOCs?
>
> > Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:49:25 AM, you wrote:
>> what is "substantial size"? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
>> probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
>> of thousands LOCs?
> Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program i
John,
please update the section "All is not well in jhc-land" because now
things are better isn´t?
2009/2/21 John Meacham
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > Hello John,
> >
> > Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > > Heh. He probably me
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Heh. He probably meant something more like "jhc is not a production
> > compiler" which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of
> > substantial size
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
> Heh. He probably meant something more like "jhc is not a production
> compiler" which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of
> substantial size or that require many extensions, jhc falls somewhat
> short. It is getting bett
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:27PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Don't forget jhc:
>>
>> i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
>> jhc isn
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
>> Don't forget jhc:
> i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
> jhc isn't our production compiler
Neither is GCC :-)
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
On 21 Feb 2009, at 00:01, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:52:27 AM, you wrote:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell
compile
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:52:27 AM, you wrote:
>> i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
>> jhc isn't our production compiler
> Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell
> compiler you like. If jhc gives you the performanc
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing an
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
> Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
__
Don't forget jhc:
on my machine (with 'print' equivalent added to C one to be fair, and
10^9 changed to 1000*1000*1000 just like the C one)
ghc: (-O2)
time ./foo
./foo 2.26s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 2.273 total
gcc:
time ./a.out
./a.out 0.34s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.341 total
jhc:
time
16 matches
Mail list logo
