claus.reinke: > it seems that haskell versions of bignums is pretty much gone from > more recent discussions of gmp replacements. now, I assume that > there are lots of optimizations that keep gmp popular that one wouldn't > want to have to reproduce, so that a haskell variant might not be > competitive even if one had an efficient representation, but > > - do all those who want to distribute binaries, but not dynamically > linked, need bignums? > - it would be nice to know just how far off a good haskell version > would be performance-wise.. > - what would be a killer for numerical programming, might still be > quite acceptable for a substantial part of haskell uses? > > of course, the real gmp replacement project might be going so well > that a haskell version would be obsolete rather sooner than later, and > i certainly don't want to interfere with that effort. > > all that being said, it occurred to me that the representations and > fusions described in the nice "rewriting haskell strings" paper would > be a good foundation for a haskell bignum project, wouldn't they? > > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/fps.html > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ReplacingGMPNotes > > has anyone been looking into this option?
Interesting, what kind of operations can you imagine fusing? > just another thought, > claus > > ps. while I'm at it: claiming that "array fusion .. has received > comparatively little attention" sounds a bit dangerous to me, > and the references are all too limited - even if you meant > "in the Haskell world" (and PADL is no Haskell event\emph{)., Yes, clearly this is in reference to rewriting-based/combinator-based deforestation. Space constraints meant we couldn't address imperative loop fusion strategies in any depth. Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users