Don't forget jhc:
on my machine (with 'print' equivalent added to C one to be fair, and
10^9 changed to 1000*1000*1000 just like the C one)
ghc: (-O2)
time ./foo
./foo 2.26s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 2.273 total
gcc:
time ./a.out
./a.out 0.34s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.341 total
jhc:
time
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:52:27 AM, you wrote:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell
compiler you like. If jhc gives you the performance you
On 21 Feb 2009, at 00:01, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:52:27 AM, you wrote:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com writes:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Neither is GCC :-)
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:27PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
Heh. He probably meant something more like jhc is not a production
compiler which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of
substantial size or that require many extensions, jhc falls somewhat
short. It is getting better
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
Heh. He probably meant something more like jhc is not a production
compiler which is true for a lot of projects. For projects of
substantial size or that
John,
please update the section All is not well in jhc-land because now
things are better isn´t?
2009/2/21 John Meacham j...@repetae.net
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:24:59AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:14:25 AM, you wrote:
Heh. He probably
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:49:25 AM, you wrote:
what is substantial size? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
of thousands LOCs?
Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program is, the
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 03:21:03AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
what is substantial size? can jhc be used for video codec, i.e.
probably no extensions - just raw computations, and thousands or tens
of thousands LOCs?
Perhaps. A bigger issue in practice is that the larger a program is,
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 01:20:14AM +0100, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
John,
please update the section All is not well in jhc-land because now
things are better isn´t?
Ah, are you refering to this page?
http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/jhc.shtml
That is just there for historical reasons as my
But it is very misleading. It would be nice to have a log or
something similar to inform about the current state
://repetae.net/computer/jhc/jhc.shtml
That is just there for historical reasons as my initial announcement.
more up to date info is
in the manual:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:42:24 AM, you wrote:
this is true for *application* code, but for codec you may have lots of
code that just compute, compute, compute
Yes indeed. If there is code like this out there for haskell, I would
love to add it as a test case for jhc.
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 3:42:24 AM, you wrote:
this is true for *application* code, but for codec you may have lots of
code that just compute, compute, compute
Yes indeed. If there is code like this out there for haskell, I would
love to add it as
16 matches
Mail list logo
