Derek Elkins wrote:
Try with rem instead of mod.
(What the heck is with bottom?)
The bottom was there by error and I was lazy to redo
the tests so I rather posted exactly what I was
doing. I do not know the compiler that good to be
absolutely sure it cannot have impact on result
... so I
Don Stewart wrote:
perfect :: [Int]
perfect = [i | i-[1..1], i == sum (divisors i)]
This should be a little faster , as sum will fuse,
perfect :: [Int]
perfect = [i | i-[1..1], i == sum' (divisors i)]
where sum' = foldr (+) 0
sum' did not help. Times are about the
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
Rodrigo Queiro wrote:
Why do you expose perfect and divisors? Maybe if you just expose main,
perfect and divisors will be inlined (although this will only save
10,000 function entries, so will probably have negligible effect).
I exposed them so that I can check types in ghci.
Hiding them does
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
Peter Hercek wrote:
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
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:
OK, if somebody wants to speculate (and if it even makes sense for
such a microbenchmark) here are some more data.
Except different OS and C++ compiler also processor is different.
On my side it was AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz, 2x1MiB L2 cache
non-shared; CQ was not switched off during the
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 ... which is
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 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).
C++ version
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).
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 implementation?
Peter Hercek wrote:
MS cl.exe version 13.10.3077 (options /G7 /MD)
And I had cl options wrong too - I need to start to
optimize not only to set the optimization target.
/G7 /MD - 1.109; 1.125; 1.125
/Ox /G7 /MD - 0.922; 0.984; 0.984
Still it does not change the results too much.
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
