> Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:40:17 +0100, Jan Kort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > I made a profile and it says most of the time (93%) is spent in
> > the function bar.
>
> Did you compile with optimization turned on (option -O)?
> I see similar results without -O but quite different with -O.
Withou
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:15:02 +0100, Jan Kort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I didn't use any optimizations, but I am sure that
> passing -O to ghc will make it see that 1*1*... is a
> constant expression.
It does not, because it's n*1*1*1*... where n is not a constant.
Major advantages seem to be fro
Sigbjorn:
Yes, this works perfectly now. Thanks!
I've taken the liberty of mailing this to the GHC mailing list so hopefully
it can percolate to the archives and be of use to others (I know I usually
check there first). I hope this won't be considered misuse of the list...
Thanks again!
Jere
"Julian Seward (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
>
> I tried this, with ghc-4.08.1 -O both with and without
> profiling, on a Sparc box of I believe around 300 MHz,
> and I can't reproduce it at all. Without profiling,
> it allocates about 505 k of heap and runs in 0.02
> seconds.
>
> Ummm ?
>
> J
I didn
I tried this, with ghc-4.08.1 -O both with and without
profiling, on a Sparc box of I believe around 300 MHz,
and I can't reproduce it at all. Without profiling,
it allocates about 505 k of heap and runs in 0.02
seconds.
Ummm ?
J
| -Original Message-
| From: Jan Kort [mailto:[EMAIL P
George
I'm sorry we've been silent. MS has some kind of huge email backlog.
But the real reason is that POPL and a workshop have intervened so
we've been out of action for a fortnight.
The plan is to release 4.08.2 in a matter of days, not weeks. If you build
the head of the ghc-4-07-branch yo
