Hello Claus,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:15:59 PM, you wrote:
> Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
> that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
> benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily verified
> that ghc has had sign
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:55:33 AM, you wrote:
>> most of these tests depends on libraries speed. in one test, PHP is
>> 1st. from 2 or 3 tests that depends on compiler speed, one was fooled
>> by adding special function readInt to ghc libs and the rest are
>> written in low-le
Hello Isaac,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:28:31 AM, you wrote:
> When did you look - six months ago? a year ago? 3 years ago?
ah, again this argument. two weeks ago Don said that ghc changed a lot
in 2 years, now when we see that there is no difference, he says that
those loop optimizer is som
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:41, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's
2009/2/20 Bulat Ziganshin :
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
>> that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
>> benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily
nothing should stop you from writing video games in Haskell since the
control logic of many video games is written in e.g. a scripting language
like LUA :-)
sure if you want to write a physics engine in Haskell, that's something
else.
but I've worked with people that wrote physics engines in C/C++
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Because generally ghc is doing a good-enough job. And it is doing
that because long ago, ghc hq's war cry was "if ghc generates code
that is slower than any other haskell imple
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:51:43PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
>> of course. what fool will say that ghc cannot be optimized the same
>> way as gcc? if we spent the same amount of time for improving ghc
>> back-end as was spent for gcc (tens or hundreds man-years?), then
>> *low-level* Haskell code
--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> From: Bulat Ziganshin
> Subject: Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Re: speed: ghc vs gcc
> To: "Isaac Gouy"
> Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
> Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 4:43 PM
> Hello Isaac,
>
> Saturday, Februa
10 matches
Mail list logo
