I have been trying to install Liskell on top of GHC 6.10.1 on Windows
XP Professional, Service Pack 2, since last month, but despite changes
to the included Main.hs file and repeated exchanges on a related
Weblog (see CFruhwirth's Weblog: Liskell standalone at
Hello,
but to specify that “this function turns a list into its sorted equivalent”
would probably require to specify e.g. sort in terms of the type system and
to write code that actually does the sorting. The first task is much like
specifying what a sorted list is in first-order-logic (much
Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
2) Detect the OS (when possible - perhaps difficult for the web/JS
interface) and display the functions specific to the platform
requesting the search.
That kind of magic would really annoy me. I might browse on one of
several platforms, and I don't expect a search
Hi
1) Show all the functions (when the number is low), but place platform
specific functions under separate headers: Windows,
Linux/BSD/POSIX, OS X, etc.
If a function isn't available on all OS's then all Hoogle would be
encouraging you to do is break compatibility and stop me from using
your
That is correct. The haskell.org mentors decided to spend the money
on hosting the haskell.org and community.haskell.org web sites and
services, to benefit the whole community rather than just
themselves.
Hmm, mentoring a project also benefits the whole community and not
just the
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2009 00:38 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch schrieb:
Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 00:17 schrieben Sie:
Do you mean this one: http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Numeric_Prelude?
There is currently no code for this, is there?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Sterling Clover wrote:
Thanks for the update on plugins! I look forward to trying them out from the
GHC mainline at some point. I don't think that units as I envision them would
need to mess with the type system directly, but could be implemented simply
as a static
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2009 00:38 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch schrieb:
Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2009 00:17 schrieben Sie:
Do you mean this one: http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Numeric_Prelude?
There is currently no code for this, is
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2009 09:42 schrieben Sie:
Hello,
but to specify that “this function turns a list into its sorted equivalent”
would probably require to specify e.g. sort in terms of the type system
and to write code that actually does the sorting. The first task is much
like
On Feb 20, 2009, at 06:07, Gene Arthur wrote:
Kim-Ee Yeoh said:
On the same note, does anyone have ideas
for the following snippet? Tried the pointfree
package but the output was useless.
pointwise op (x0,y0) (x1,y1) = (x0 `op` x1, y0 `op` y1)
First sorry for the delay in getting to this..
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Robert Vollmert rvollmert-li...@gmx.netwrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 06:07, Gene Arthur wrote:
Kim-Ee Yeoh said:
On the same note, does anyone have ideas
for the following snippet? Tried the pointfree
package but the output was useless.
pointwise op
Hello haskell-cafe,
since there are no objective tests comparing ghc to gcc, i made my own
one. these are 3 programs, calculating sum in c++ and haskell:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
main = print $ sum0 (10^9) 0
sum0 :: Int - Int - Int
sum0 0 !acc = acc
sum0 !x !acc = sum0 (x-1) (acc+x)
Kemps-Benedix Torsten torsten.kemps-bene...@sks-ub.de wrote:
Hello,
but to specify that ___this function turns a list into its sorted
equivalent___ would probably require to specify e.g. sort in terms of
the type system and to write code that actually does the sorting. The
first task is
Ahem. Seems like you've included time spent on the runtime loading.
My results:
MigMit:~ MigMit$ gcc -o test -O3 -funroll-loops test.c time ./test
-1243309312
real0m0.066s
user0m0.063s
sys 0m0.002s
MigMit:~ MigMit$ rm test; ghc -O2 --make test.hs time ./test
Linking test ...
Forget it, my bad.
On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:48, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
Ahem. Seems like you've included time spent on the runtime loading.
My results:
MigMit:~ MigMit$ gcc -o test -O3 -funroll-loops test.c time ./test
-1243309312
real0m0.066s
user0m0.063s
sys 0m0.002s
MigMit:~
Hello Miguel,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 4:48:15 PM, you wrote:
Ahem. Seems like you've included time spent on the runtime loading.
for C, i've used additional 100x loop
sys 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.017s
While 3.201 vs. 0.066 seem to be a huge difference, 0.017 vs. 0.002 is
not that bad.
Test.hs
import Prelude hiding (sum, enumFromTo)
import Data.List.Stream (sum, unfoldr)
enumFromTo m n = unfoldr f m
where f k | k = n= Just (k,k+1)
| otherwise = Nothing
main = print . sum $ enumFromTo 1 (10^9 :: Int)
snip
do...@zeke % time ./Test
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
DRAFT version ___ comments please
Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word meaning if you
actually mean denotation. It confuses the hell out of me, especially
the (I guess unintended) connotation that you analyse the meaning of a
particular
Hi!
I've just installed ghc (v 6.10.1) for Windows, and it seems to be
installed correctly, and now I'm trying to install Cabal (v1.6.0.2),
but I'm getting the following error message (along with a lot of
warnings about a deprecated something-or-other, which I assume I can
ignore):
C:\Temprunghc
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100
Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
DRAFT version ___ comments please
Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word meaning if you
actually mean denotation. It confuses the hell out of me, especially
the
Sorry for replying to myself, but I got suspicious about the 6ms runtime of
the 64-bit C++ code on my machine. So I looked at the assembly and found this:
.LCFI1:
movabsq
wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
(b) allows
instances to have a fixed type for keys (like Data.Trie and
Data.IntMap have),
Can't we do some type magic to automagically select Data.Trie if the
key is a (strict) bytestring?
--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity.
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
execution times:
sum:
ghc 6.6.1 -O2 : 12.433 secs
ghc 6.10.1 -O2 : 12.792 secs
sum-fast:
ghc 6.6.1 -O2 : 1.919 secs
ghc 6.10.1 -O2 : 1.856 secs
ghc 6.10.1 -O2 -fvia-C
* Achim Schneider bars...@web.de [2009-02-20 15:17:14 +0100]:
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
DRAFT version ___ comments please
Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word meaning if you
actually mean denotation. It confuses the hell out of me, especially
the (I guess
On a G4:
s.hs (which does not need bang patterns) is:
main = seq (sum0 (10^9) 0) (return ())
sum0 :: Int - Int - Int
sum0 0 acc = acc
sum0 x acc = sum0 (x-1) $! (acc+x)
And s.c is (actually including 10^9, which Bulat's did not):
main()
{
int sum=0;
for(int i=1000*1000*1000; i0; i--)
Robin Green gree...@greenrd.org wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100
Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
DRAFT version ___ comments please
Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word meaning if
you actually mean denotation.
Hello Dan,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:39:25 PM, you wrote:
Not that I'd be sad if GHC could reduce that whole constant at compile time,
but GCC isn't doing 1 billion adds in 6 (or even 60) milliseconds.
yes, that's what was done actually:
22 0020 8D44D01C leal
When I change the C++ program into:
int n;
scanf(%d, n);
for(i=0; in;i++)
{
sum += i;
}
GCC need 100 milliseconds on my 3.0GHz new Xeon with loop unrolling
enabled.
Without loop unrolling GCC needs about 635ms
Visual C++ does it in 577 ms, generating the following code:
loop: add
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:44:44 PM, you wrote:
Nice! Now we know that gcc can calculate faster than Haskell can
calculate and print. Next time, use exitWith, please.
it was done in order to simplify sources. are you really believe that
ghc needs more than 1 millisecond to
Peter == Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com writes:
Peter So GHC is about 3 to 4 times slower as Visual C++ / GCC
Peter without loop unrolling, which is not too bad since GHC does
Peter not perform register optimization and loop unrolling yet
Peter no?
I would call it rather
Hello Peter,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:18:50 PM, you wrote:
So GHC is about 3 to 4 times slower as Visual C++ / GCC without
loop unrolling
why stop on disabling loop unrolling? there are lot of options we can
use if we want to make gcc slower :D
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:44:44 PM, you wrote:
Nice! Now we know that gcc can calculate faster than Haskell can
calculate and print. Next time, use exitWith, please.
it was done in order to simplify sources. are you
Well C# does it with a for loop in 2300ms, and when using a IEnumerable
sequence it needs 19936ms. Very much like the Haskell code. But of course
the Haskell code could optimize the sum I guess, I assume it is using the
lazy version of sum by default.
Anyway it was more of a question. Does GHC
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:25:31 PM, you wrote:
it was done in order to simplify sources. are you really believe that
ghc needs more than 1 millisecond to print one number? :)
Well, I know that (Show a) is about as slow as you can get.
yes, but it's printed only once against
Hello Peter,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:34:04 PM, you wrote:
Well C# does it with a for loop in 2300ms, and when using a
IEnumerable sequence it needs 19936ms. Very much like the Haskell
code. But of course the Haskell code could optimize the sum I guess,
I assume it is using the lazy
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for replying to myself, but I got suspicious about the 6ms runtime of
the 64-bit C++ code on my machine. So I looked at the assembly and found
this:
.LCFI1:
movabsq $45, %rsi
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Peter,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:34:04 PM, you wrote:
Well C# does it with a for loop in 2300ms, and when using a
IEnumerable sequence it needs__19936ms. Very much like the Haskell
code. But of course the Haskell code could
On Friday 20 February 2009 10:52:03 am David Leimbach wrote:
The GCC optimizer must know that you can't return a value to user space of
that large as a return result.
In Haskell you're printing it... why not print it in C++?
I actually changed my local copy to print out the result (since I
Hello David,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:52:03 PM, you wrote:
In Haskell you're printing it... why not print it in C++?
in order to omit #include stdio line
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
___
Hey guys, what about the LLVM bindings? They seem nice for tight loops this one.
--
Felipe.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello haskell-cafe,
since there are no objective tests comparing ghc to gcc, i made my own
one. these are 3 programs, calculating sum in c++ and haskell:
Wonderful. Thank you!
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
This won't be comparable to your loop below, as 'sum' is a
thanks Henk-Jan, someone just helped me saying that my function is
pure as long as I make a cache of it, indexed on arguments. This
operationally proves that concurrent IO code can be purified with
unsafePerformIO, when it's semantic is not changed by that kind of
cache. Really doing the cache
Hello Don,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 7:41:33 PM, you wrote:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
This won't be comparable to your loop below, as 'sum' is a left fold
(which doesn't fuse under build/foldr).
You should use the list implementation from the stream-fusion package (or
uvector) if
Hello Thomas,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 8:22:33 PM, you wrote:
doesn't matter for testing speed
okay then, I wrote a faster Haskell version:
main = print Hello world
for you, any language will be fast enough :D
--
Best regards,
Bulat
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Robin Green gree...@greenrd.org wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100
Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
DRAFT version ___ comments please
Conal, please,
Yeah, I totally forgot about arrays.
But if you're interested in pure computations that use arrays for
intermediate results, maybe uvector[1] is what you are looking for
instead?
-- ryan
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/uvector
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM,
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 09:17 +, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
1) Show all the functions (when the number is low), but place platform
specific functions under separate headers: Windows,
Linux/BSD/POSIX, OS X, etc.
If a function isn't available on all OS's then all Hoogle would be
bulat.ziganshin:
Friday, February 20, 2009, 7:41:33 PM, you wrote:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
This won't be comparable to your loop below, as 'sum' is a left fold
(which doesn't fuse under build/foldr).
You should use the list implementation from the stream-fusion package (or
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com wrote:
If a function isn't available on all OS's then all Hoogle would be
encouraging you to do is break compatibility and stop me from using
your software. If a function is only available on one OS you will
certainly have to
Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
No! This is not how open source works! You *should submit bug
reports* and *analysis*. It is so so much more useful than
complaining and throwing stones.
Exactly. I don't know where, but I read that the vast majorities of
Linux bugs are reported, nailed, and
I've encountered another problem while trying to install
'HDBC-sqlite3'. I did the install manually, instead of using Cabal,
and during the build phase, received the following error message:
D:\Apps\ghc\ghc-6.10.1\HDBC-sqlite3-2.1.0.0runghc Setup build
Preprocessing library
I think you need to install sqlite3 first. This is just a binding to the C
library.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, David dfket...@gmail.com wrote:
I've encountered another problem while trying to install
'HDBC-sqlite3'. I did the install manually, instead of using Cabal,
and during the
Wolfgang Jeltsch-2 wrote:
Am Montag, 16. Februar 2009 19:22 schrieb Wolfgang Jeltsch:
First, I thought so too but I changed my mind. To my knowledge a type
(forall a. T[a]) - T' is equivalent to the type exists a. (T[a] - T').
It’s the same as in predicate logic – Curry-Howard in action.
barsoap:
Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
No! This is not how open source works! You *should submit bug
reports* and *analysis*. It is so so much more useful than
complaining and throwing stones.
Exactly. I don't know where, but I read that the vast majorities of
Linux bugs are
Concrete examples always help, thanks.
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
- enable others to find and repeat the test when this thread is long gone,
to see whether any other ghc changes have helped in any way
- enable documentation of what exactly the issue is (why is it
I think you're right. I didn't realize I had to install Sqlite before
installing and building the HDBC-sqlite package. So I did that, but
now I'm getting a different error, because the DLL for Sqlite isn't
getting found. How do I tell the build process where the DLL is?
Here's the new error
Hmmm. That's probably a better framework to draw on for the general array
interface.
The real goal, though, was to be able to abstract out the array usage:
specifically: stateful-mtl provided MonadST and then an ArrayT that drew on
the state thread from a MonadST to hold its own STArray (which I
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:15:59 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
(The bang patterns aren't needed). Note how he counts backwards from
10^9. Was there a reason for that, Bulat?
Tests against zero are faster, as you don't need a second operand... by
now, some platforms might be smart enough, but down-counting in loops
is
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:15:59 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2009 18:10 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Don,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 7:41:33 PM, you wrote:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
This won't be comparable to your loop below, as 'sum' is a left fold
(which doesn't fuse under build/foldr).
You should use the
claus.reinke:
Concrete examples always help, thanks.
In simple enough situations, one can roll one's own loop unrolling;),
somewhat like shown below (worker/wrapper split to bring the function
parameter representing the loop body into scope, then template haskell
to unroll its applications
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:44:49 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything wrong.
Achim, this is simplest code one can
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:44:49 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything wrong.
Achim,
dons:
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:44:49 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything wrong.
Back when you debugged your code all night long, you were only
dreaming.
Achim, this doesn't seem like a constructive way to respond. Bulat's already
Don Stewart ha scritto:
dons:
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:44:49 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
so - why YOU think that ghc
generates fast code and this example is something unusual?
I think ghc has decent performance, and that there's room for
improvement. I don't care whether you compare it to gcc,
malbolge, or hand-written assembly,
Hello Manlio,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:54:00 AM, you wrote:
ghc -O2 naive left fold15.680
As a full comparison I would like to see time for
ghc -O0 naive left fold
he is still waiting :))) but that's really has only theoretical
interest, comparing ghc -O2 on
Bryan O'Sullivan b...@serpentine.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de
wrote:
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything wrong.
Back when you debugged your code all night long, you were only
dreaming.
Achim, this doesn't
On 20 Feb 2009, at 22:57, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Don,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:43:46 AM, you wrote:
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops 0.318
ghc -funroll-loops -D64 0.088
So what did we learn here?
nothing new: what you are not interested
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Don,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:43:46 AM, you wrote:
gcc -O3 -funroll-loops 0.318
ghc -funroll-loops -D64 0.088
So what did we learn here?
nothing new: what you are not
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 Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:54:33 AM, you wrote:
so - why YOU think that ghc
generates fast code and this example is something unusual?
I think ghc has decent performance, and that there's room for
improvement. I don't care whether you compare it to gcc,
i'm asking
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:17:08 AM, you wrote:
nothing new: what you are not interested in real compilers comparison,
preferring to demonstrate artificial results
...that we have a path to get better results than gcc -O3
-funroll-loops, and it's within reach... we even can
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:33, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:17:08 AM, you wrote:
nothing new: what you are not interested in real compilers
comparison,
preferring to demonstrate artificial results
...that we have a path to get better results than gcc -O3
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily verified
that ghc has had
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
Hello, cafe.
I whant to switch to GHC 6.10
My application compiled fine with 6.8.3, but after switchin to 6.10,
I've got errors about usage of catch function:
Main.hs:165:14:
Ambiguous type variable `e2' in the constraint:
`Exception e2' arising from a use of `catch' at
Probably not, but I'd like to understand what I'm doing wrong. I think
it might have something to do with the fact that I've also got Hugs
for Windows installed. Could there be some sort of conflict? I'm just
following the steps in Appendix A of Real World Haskell, which
doesn't mention the
I thin you need to use the following two options to point cabal configure to
the right include and lib directories:--extra-include-dirs=*dir*
--extra-lib-dirs=*dir*
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:20 PM, David dfket...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're right. I didn't realize I had to install Sqlite
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:41, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's
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, 1:41:24 AM, you wrote:
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things
really aren't as bad as you're making out √ Haskell comes in in
general less than 3x slower than gcc compiled C.
you should look inside these tests, as i
2009/2/20 Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
benchmarks will back this up), *however*,
On 20 Feb 2009, at 23:52, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:41:24 AM, you wrote:
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that
things
really aren't as bad as you're making out √ Haskell comes in in
general less than 3x slower than gcc
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:41:24 AM, you wrote:
so, again: this confirms that Don is always build artificial
comparisons, optimizing Haskell code by hand and ignoring obvious ways
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things
and yes - this is the
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:17:08 AM, you wrote:
nothing new: what you are not interested in real compilers comparison,
preferring to demonstrate artificial results
...that we have a path to get better results than gcc -O3
-funroll-loops, and it's
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
Thomas Davie wrote:
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things
really aren't as bad as you're making out – Haskell comes in in general
less than 3x slower than gcc compiled C.
Of note, of all the managed languages, this is about the fastest – none
of the other
L.S.,
I have updated wxFruit to work with GHC 6.10; it can be downloaded from
Hackage:
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/wxFruit
wxFruit is a graphical user interface that combines some of the power and
versatility of wxHaskell with the elegance and simplicity
On Friday 20 February 2009 16:29:29 Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello haskell-cafe,
since there are no objective tests comparing ghc to gcc, i made my own
one. these are 3 programs, calculating sum in c++ and haskell:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
... skipped ...
The discussion is mostly
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
On 21 Feb 2009, at 00:10, Ahn, Ki Yung wrote:
Thomas Davie wrote:
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that
things really aren't as bad as you're making out – Haskell comes in
in general less than 3x slower than gcc compiled C.
Of note, of all the managed languages,
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:55:33 AM, you wrote:
most of these tests depends on libraries speed. in one test, PHP is
1st. from 2 or 3 tests that depends on compiler speed, one was fooled
by adding special function readInt to ghc libs and the rest are
written in low-level
Hello Don,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:55:19 AM, you wrote:
This is extremely depressing to read after the good results and lessons of
this thread.
you misunderstand, it is not personal! We just want something to
sarcasm on. Something specific.
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
but problem - not mine, but for haskellers, is that some people said
that ghc can generate code that is as fast as gcc one. it will be
stupid if someone will start to write say mpeg4 codec and after year
of work will find that it need 100 Ghz
Hello Khudyakov,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 2:07:39 AM, you wrote:
I have another question. Why shouldn't compiler realize that `sum [1..10^9]'
is constant and thus evaluate it at compile time?
since we expect that compilation will be done in reasonable amount of
time. you cannot guarantee
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
