On 28/11/12 12:48, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:20:57AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
My personal opinion is that we should switch to dynamic-by-default
on all x86_64 platforms, and OS X x86. The performance penalty for
x86/Linux is too high (30%),
FWIW, if they're able to move from x86 static to x86_64 dynamic then
there's only a ~15% difference overall:
Run Time
-1 s.d. ----- -18.7%
+1 s.d. ----- +60.5%
Average ----- +14.2%
Mutator Time
-1 s.d. ----- -29.0%
+1 s.d. ----- +33.7%
Average ----- -2.6%
GC Time
-1 s.d. ----- +22.0%
+1 s.d. ----- +116.1%
Average ----- +62.4%
The figures on the wiki are different: x86 static -> x86_64 dynamic has
+2.3% runtime. What's going on here?
I'm not sure I buy the argument that it's ok to penalise x86/Linux users
by 30% because they can use x86_64 instead, which is only 15% slower.
Unlike OS X, Linux users using the 32-bit binaries probably have a
32-bit Linux installation, which can't run 64-bit binaries (32-bit is
still the recommended Ubuntu installation for desktops, FWIW).
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
