> 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
"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
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 4:40 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Floating point performance
|
|
| Hi,
| I noticed ghc (version 4.08.1) floating point performance is
| really slow on my computer: a 270Mhz sun ultra5. The program
| below does 1 milion floating
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.
--
__("< Marcin Ko
Hi,
I noticed ghc (version 4.08.1) floating point performance is
really slow on my computer: a 270Mhz sun ultra5. The program
below does 1 milion floating point multiplications and takes
2 seconds to run. I made a profile and it says most of the
time (93%) is spent in the function bar. Any idea
