On 17/03/2010 00:17, Louis Wasserman wrote:
I tested, and this implementation actually performs better if the spine
is maintained lazily, so we'll test that version.
May I request that, unless there's a significant speedup from using a
strict spine, that you use a lazy spine where possible. The reason
being that lazy data structures work much better in a parallel setting:
a strict spine is a course-grained lock on the whole operation, whereas
a lazy spine corresponds to a fine-grained locking strategy.
Apart from this, as you were ;)
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
