On Wednesday 15 September 2010 02:50:15, David Terei wrote: > On 13 September 2010 20:41, Vo Minh Thu <not...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... the post is from 2008. No LLVM goodness. So I thought GHC 6.12.1 > > (not the latest and greatest HEAD) would be enough. > > I compiled the two programs myself out of curiosity and got the > following times. > > Linux, 64bit, Ubuntu 10.10: > > 1e8 > clang: 0.180s > gcc: 0.179s > ghc 6.12.1 (viac): 0.187s > ghc 6.12.1 (fasm): 0.218s > ghc HEAD (viac): 0.186s > ghc HEAD (fasm): 0.179s > ghc HEAD (llvm): 0.174s > > 1e9 > clang: 1.657s > gcc: 1.647s > ghc 6.12.1 (viac): 1.653s > ghc 6.12.1 (fasm): 1.975s > ghc HEAD (viac): 1.648s > ghc HEAD (fasm): 1.658s > ghc HEAD (llvm): 1.646s > > So basically all have the same time except ghc 6.12.1 where fasm is a > little slow. > > On windows xp 32bit I get quite different results which I trust less > as the times are jumping around much more then they were on linux: > > 1e8 > gcc: 0.365s > ghc 6.12.1 (viac): 5.287s > ghc 6.12.1 (fasm): 1.332s > ghc HEAD (viac): 5.292s > ghc HEAD (fasm): 0.875s > ghc HEAD (llvm): 0.359s > > Not sure why the results on windows are so different.
I have no idea why, but I remember that on several occasions timings for via-C compiled programmes on Windows have been abysmal. Whether it's a general Windows/gcc mismatch or something GHC-specific, I've no idea (and can't find out, not having Windows). For what it's worth, the approximate timings on my 32-bit linux (openSUSE 11.1) box have been 1e8 gcc: ~0.4s 6.12.3 (viac): ~1.2s 6.12.3 (fasm): ~2.7s HEAD the same as 6.12.3 (I have deleted the programmes and I don't remember the exact timings, if you're interested, I could reconstruct them). > If anyone else > wants to run the two programs on Windows and check that would be > great. > > Cheers, > David _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
