On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:40:02AM +0100, Ketil Malde wrote: > > I had done that, actually, before even my first post, and knew that it > > changes little to the picture, at least on my system. > > I think Bulat was right on the money here: you're essentially testing > the efficiency of writing integers. Presumably, JHC is better than > GHC at specializing/inlining this library function.
Indeed, but isn't being better at specializing/inlining exactly what an optimizing compiler should do. :) In any case, these results are not atypical, generally, if jhc can compile something, it ends up being 2-3x faster than ghc. After all, C-comparable (or even superior) speed is the main goal of jhc development. And if anything, I am more convinced than when I started that the goal is achievable. With jhc today, C comparable performance from numerical code is not difficult to achieve with some attention to strictness annotations. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell