rem is faster because it has slightly different behaviour to mod, and
there happens to be an intel instruction that maps more directly to
rem than to mod, thus making it much faster on intel processors.
Why do you expose perfect and divisors? Maybe if you just expose main,
perfect and divisors
Hello all,
just to compare the stuff, I get quite other results being on other
OS. Thus, the result of C++ compiler may not be that interesting as I do
not have the one presented below.
My machine:
Linux 2.6.23-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Oct 22 12:50:26 CEST 2007 x86_64
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU
Am Montag, 29. Oktober 2007 13:49 schrieb Dusan Kolar:
Hello all,
just to compare the stuff, I get quite other results being on other
OS. Thus, the result of C++ compiler may not be that interesting as I do
not have the one presented below.
Just to chime in, my results with the code below:
peter:
Daniel Fischer wrote:
What perpetually puzzles me is that in C long long int has very good
performance, *much* faster than gmp, in Haskell, on my computer, Int64 is
hardly faster than Integer.
I tried the example with Int64 and Integer. The integer version
was actually quicker
peter:
Peter Hercek wrote:
C++ version times: 1.125; 1.109; 1.125
Int32 cpu times: 3.203; 3.172; 3.172
Int64 cpu times: 11.734; 11.797; 11.844
Integer cpu times: 9.609; 9.609; 9.500
Ooops, my results ware wrong (nonoptimizing ms cl
compiler used and I used -O instead of -O2 in ghc).
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:34 +0100, Peter Hercek wrote:
Don Stewart wrote:
C++ version times: 1.109; 1.125; 1.125
Int32 cpu times: 1.359; 1.359; 1.375
Int64 cpu times: 11.688; 11.719; 11.766
Integer cpu times: 9.719; 9.703; 9.703
Great result from ghc.
What Haskell program were
peter:
Don Stewart wrote:
C++ version times: 1.109; 1.125; 1.125
Int32 cpu times: 1.359; 1.359; 1.375
Int64 cpu times: 11.688; 11.719; 11.766
Integer cpu times: 9.719; 9.703; 9.703
Great result from ghc.
What Haskell program were you using for this test? The original
naive/high level
