On Monday 29 Mar 2004 3:49 pm, John Hughes wrote: > Actually the cache behaviour of code generated by GHC isn't at all bad. > I know because I ran a student project a couple of years ago to > implement cache-friendly optimisations. The first thing they did was > cache profiling of some benchmarks, and to our surprise we discovered > the cache behaviour of lazy code is already pretty good. You get a lot > of structure in the evaluation of lazy code -- it just isn't evident in > the source code!
That's interesting. So why do you think "OCaml is so darned fast compared to Haskell" :-) Seriously though, is this finding consistent with the paper Nicholas Nethercote mentioned? I had a quick read of the paper but didn't take the time to digest the full significance of all tests done and graphs presented. But if I understood the overall conclusions correctly there were several reasons for relatively poor performance on modern processors (one of which was a high rate of cache misses). I suppose we should distinguish code from heap accesses here though. Regards -- Adrian Hey _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
