I minor changes, fixing up my chunking function (finally) thus
eliminating the space leak. Performance is now under 3x that of C!
Yay! Also, nano MD5 benched at 1.15x 'C' (for files small enough for
strict ByteStrings to do ok).
Get the code:
darcs get http://code.haskell.org/~tommd/pureMD5
On
Don Stewart wrote:
dpiponi:
I was getting about 1.5s for the Haskell program and about 0.08s for
the C one with the same n=10,000,000.
I'm sure we can do better than that!
That's the spirit! :-D
Speaking of which [yes, I'm going to totally hijack this thread now...],
does
Glad you asked!
http://sequence.complete.org/node/367
I just posted that last night! Once I get a a community.haskell.org
login I will put the code on darcs.
The short of it it:
1) The code is still ugly, I haven't been modivated to clean.
2) Manually unrolled, it is ~ 6 times slower than C
3)
andrewcoppin:
Don Stewart wrote:
dpiponi:
I was getting about 1.5s for the Haskell program and about 0.08s for
the C one with the same n=10,000,000.
I'm sure we can do better than that!
That's the spirit! :-D
Speaking of which [yes, I'm going to totally hijack this
thomas.dubuisson:
Glad you asked!
http://sequence.complete.org/node/367
I just posted that last night! Once I get a a community.haskell.org
login I will put the code on darcs.
Cool. I'll look at this.
You might like to test against,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Thomas M. DuBuisson wrote:
Glad you asked!
http://sequence.complete.org/node/367
I just posted that last night! Once I get a a community.haskell.org
login I will put the code on darcs.
The short of it it:
1) The code is still ugly, I haven't
