Tim Chevalier wrote:
On 12/14/07, Dan Piponi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There have been some great improvements in array handling recently. I
decided to have a look at the assembly language generated by some
simple array manipulation code and understand why C is at least twice
as fast as ghc
On 12/20/07, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not entirely true - there is a fairly decent linear-scan register
allocator in GHC
http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc/compiler/nativeGen/RegAllocLinear.hs
the main bottleneck is not the quality of the register allocation (at
least, not
Andrew Coppin wrote:
(I suppose I could try writing a nop program and timing it. But
personally I don't have any way of timing things to that degree of
accuracy. I understand there are command line tools on Unix that will do
it, but not here.)
You can try for example this one
Tim Chevalier wrote:
Try the -Rghc-timing flag.
Interesting, that one does not work in my program compiled with
ghc 6.8.1 (looks like ghc runtime does not consume it but passes
it to my haskell code). +RTS -tstderr works but its usability is
limited since it provides only elapsed time and
On 12/15/07, Peter Hercek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Chevalier wrote:
Try the -Rghc-timing flag.
Interesting, that one does not work in my program compiled with
ghc 6.8.1 (looks like ghc runtime does not consume it but passes
it to my haskell code). +RTS -tstderr works but its
Tim Chevalier wrote:
On 12/15/07, Peter Hercek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Chevalier wrote:
Try the -Rghc-timing flag.
Interesting, that one does not work in my program compiled with
ghc 6.8.1 (looks like ghc runtime does not consume it but passes
it to my haskell code). +RTS -tstderr
