On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 22:54 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
> bulat.ziganshin:
> > definitely, it's a whole new era in low-level ghc programming
>
> victory!
Now I want a way of getting (well-used) SIMD instructions and such, and
with some luck some high-level approach as well.
___
bulat.ziganshin:
> definitely, it's a whole new era in low-level ghc programming
victory!
-- Don :D
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 05:03:54PM -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:39:55AM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 16:24 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:23PM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > $ ghc --make -O2 gh
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:39:55AM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 16:24 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:23PM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > >
> > > $ ghc --make -O2 ghc-bench.hs
> Even for GCC (/not/ G_H_C)?
No, GCC implements -Ox properl
On Nov 8, 2007 2:48 PM, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You really do not need happy to build ghc. Just ignore the extralibs
> tarball.
Well that was the crucial fact I needed. 6.8.1 is now built. ghci
doesn't work, it complains about an unknown symbol '_environ' in
HSbase-3.0.0.0.o but
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 16:24 -0800, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:23PM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> >
> > $ ghc --make -O2 ghc-bench.hs
> >
> > and got:
> >
> > $ time ./ghc-bench
> > 2.0e7
> >
> > real0m0.714s
> > user0m0.576s
> > sys 0m0.132s
> >
> > $
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:23PM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
>
> $ ghc --make -O2 ghc-bench.hs
>
> and got:
>
> $ time ./ghc-bench
> 2.0e7
>
> real0m0.714s
> user0m0.576s
> sys 0m0.132s
>
> $ time ./ghcbC
> 2000.00
>
> real0m0.305s
> user0m0.164s
> sys 0
Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> xj2106:
>> I used `unsafePerformIO' with `INLINE', because I don't know
>> where `inlinePerformIO' is now. And also the `-optc-march'
>> is changed to `nocona'.
>
> Using unsafePerformIO here would break some crucial inlining.
> (the same trick is used in
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 13:00 -0800, Dan Piponi wrote:
> It looks like my whole question might become moot with ghc 6.8.1, but
> so far I've been unable to build it due to the cyclic happy
> dependency.
You really do not need happy to build ghc. Just ignore the extralibs
tarball. You can install a
xj2106:
> Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Can you start by retrying with flags from the spectral-norm benchmark:
> >
> >
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=spectralnorm&lang=ghc&id=0
> >
> > The interaction with gcc here is quite important, so forcing -
bulat.ziganshin:
> Hello Don,
>
> Thursday, November 8, 2007, 10:53:28 PM, you wrote:
>
> >>a <- newArray (0,n-1) 1.0 :: IO (IOUArray Int Double)
> >>forM_ [0..n-2] $ \i -> do { x <- readArray a i; y <- readArray a
> >> (i+1); writeArray a (i+1) (x+y) }
>
> oh, i was stupid. obviously, f
Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you start by retrying with flags from the spectral-norm benchmark:
>
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=spectralnorm&lang=ghc&id=0
>
> The interaction with gcc here is quite important, so forcing -fvia-C
> will matter.
C
nominolo:
> On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:33 -0800, Dan Piponi wrote:
> > I see lots of shootout examples where Haskell programs seem to perform
> > comparably with C programs, but I find it hard to reproduce anything
> > like those figures when testing with my own code. So here's a simple
> > case:
> >
On Nov 8, 2007 12:36 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dpiponi:
> Can you start by retrying with flags from the spectral-norm benchmark:
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=spectralnorm&lang=ghc&id=0
Actually, that was my starting point for investigating ho
dpiponi:
> On Nov 8, 2007 12:16 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you can post the code somewhere, that would be great, with examples
> > of how to reproduce your timings.
>
> The code is exactly what I posted originally (but nore that n is 10
> times larger in the C code). I co
On Nov 8, 2007 12:16 PM, Don Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can post the code somewhere, that would be great, with examples
> of how to reproduce your timings.
The code is exactly what I posted originally (but nore that n is 10
times larger in the C code). I compiled using ghc -O3 -o
dpiponi:
> On Nov 8, 2007 11:34 AM, Jason Dusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you show us your compilation options and timings?
>
> I was simply using -O3. I tried a bunch of other flags (copied from
> the shootout examples) but they made no appreciable difference.
Argh, -O2 please. -O3 does
"Dan Piponi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My wasn't intended to represent the problem that I'm trying to solve,
> but the approach I want to take. The problems that I do want to solve
> don't lend themselves to this kind of approach.
>
> My real situation is that I want to write code that has bot
On Nov 8, 2007 11:36 AM, Paul Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All that said, I'm not sure where I got the GHC that I used to build
> the 6.6.1 via MacPorts; I think it shipped with MacOS once upon a time.
> sudo port install ghc
. . .
configure: error: GHC is required unless bootstrapping from
dpiponi:
> I see lots of shootout examples where Haskell programs seem to perform
> comparably with C programs, but I find it hard to reproduce anything
> like those figures when testing with my own code. So here's a simple
> case:
>
> I have this C program:
>
> #include
>
> #define n 1
On Nov 8, 2007 11:34 AM, Jason Dusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you show us your compilation options and timings?
I was simply using -O3. I tried a bunch of other flags (copied from
the shootout examples) but they made no appreciable difference.
I was getting about 1.5s for the Haskell prog
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Dan,
>
> Thursday, November 8, 2007, 9:33:12 PM, you wrote:
>
>> main = do
>>a <- newArray (0,n-1) 1.0 :: IO (IOUArray Int Double)
>>forM_ [0..n-2] $ \i -> do { x <- readArray a i; y <- readArray a
>> (i+1); writeArray a (i+1) (x+y) }
>>
Can you show us your compilation options and timings?
--
_jsn
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:33 -0800, Dan Piponi wrote:
> I see lots of shootout examples where Haskell programs seem to perform
> comparably with C programs, but I find it hard to reproduce anything
> like those figures when testing with my own code. So here's a simple
> case:
>
> I have this C prog
On Nov 8, 2007 11:24 AM, Thomas Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. You should *really* try using GHC 6.8.1:
I was hoping you weren't going to say that :-) As soon as I find a
suitable 64-bit Intel binary for MacOSX, or can bootstrap my way out
of happy needing happy in my attempted sourc
Mikhail,
> main = do
> print $ foldl' (+) 0 $ take 1 [1.0,1.0..]
>
> works 10 times faster than your C version. You just need to adapt to the
> radically different style of programming.
My wasn't intended to represent the problem that I'm trying to solve,
but the approach I want to take
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:33 -0800, Dan Piponi wrote:
> I see lots of shootout examples where Haskell programs seem to perform
> comparably with C programs, but I find it hard to reproduce anything
> like those figures when testing with my own code. So here's a simple
> case:
>
> I have this C prog
Bulat,
The strictness gave me something like a 10% performance increase
making the Haskell code more than 10 times slower than the C. Is this
the right type of array to use for performance?
--
Dan
On Nov 8, 2007 10:36 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> Thursday, Novem
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 00:51 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> "Dan Piponi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Even though 'n' is 10 times bigger in the C program it runs much
> > faster than the Haskell program on my MacBook Pro with Haskell 6.6.1.
> > I've tried lots of different combinations of fla
"Dan Piponi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even though 'n' is 10 times bigger in the C program it runs much
> faster than the Haskell program on my MacBook Pro with Haskell 6.6.1.
> I've tried lots of different combinations of flags that I've found in
> various postings to haskell-cafe but to no a
Hello Dan,
Thursday, November 8, 2007, 9:33:12 PM, you wrote:
> main = do
>a <- newArray (0,n-1) 1.0 :: IO (IOUArray Int Double)
>forM_ [0..n-2] $ \i -> do { x <- readArray a i; y <- readArray a
> (i+1); writeArray a (i+1) (x+y) }
>x <- readArray a (n-1)
>print x
1. ghc doesn't i
31 matches
Mail list logo
