simonmarhaskell: > Donald Bruce Stewart wrote: > >Got some initial nobench numbers for ghc head -fvia-C versus -fasm, on > >amd64: > > > > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html > > > >Overall all of nobench, ghc -fasm averages 3% slower. Not too shabby! > >There's some wider variation on the microbenchmarks in the imaginary > >class: > > > > one case 20% faster, another 30% slower, average 2% slower. > > nsieve is interesting... I'm looking into it now. Also the HEAD seems > slower on that program. > > >On real programs though, 3% slower on average. > >The big benefit of course, no perl, no gcc and faster compilation times. > > I'd thought that -fasm was a slight improvement over -fvia-C on x86_64, so > this is a surprise to me. I know it's slower on x86, mainly due to the > poor code generationg for floating point on x86. >
Initial x86 numbers now up, note the (known) floating point issues: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/i686/results.html > You might consider discounting the programs that run for less than 0.1 > seconds from the average, that's what nofib-analyse does. Good idea. Will do. I'll see if I can increase the runtime on a few others. > > BTW, what happened to imaginary/rfib? I find that a useful floating point > microbenchmark. Ah right. It was subsumed with the 'recursive' benchmark, but it might be useful to have back since its smaller. I'll add it. -- Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
