On 11/2/06, Chad Scherrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lemmih wrote:
> Using 'seq' is generally a bad idea. It can worsen the performance if
> not used carefully and GHCs strictness analyser is usually good
> enough.
Is GHC.Conc.pseq any better? Usually the whole point of making things
more strict is to optimize performance for pieces you know will be
evaluated anyway. It's frustrating if there's not a consistent way to
do this that works well.
pseq is just as bad. The problem is excessive use of strictness
annotations in the hope of a magical performance improvement.
Strictness annotations should be used with care and only placed where
they're needed.
Lately, I've been using lots of strictness annotations and bang
patterns - are there non-obvious places this could slow things down?
In the case of the MersenneTwister, forcing 'y4' from 'next32' would
evaluate it almost 10,000,000 times more than needed.
Would it be possible for the type system to distinguish at compile
time whether something would need to be evaluated, and optimize away
redundant `seq`s? Maybe this is what the strictness analyzer does
already.
Evaluating the seq's isn't costly, afaik.
--
Cheers,
Lemmih
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
