'
Subject: RE: integer-simple
I tried building an integer-simple 7.2.1-RC1 with 7.0.3 binary-install on
Ubuntu 11.04. ghci is still not happy:
chris@Ubuntu-11:~/etc$ ghci
GHCi, version 7.2.0.20110728: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done
From: Chris Dornan [mailto:ch...@chrisdornan.com]
Sent: 30 July 2011 21:35
To: 'glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org'
Subject: RE: integer-simple
I tried building an integer-simple 7.2.1-RC1 with 7.0.3 binary-install on
Ubuntu 11.04. ghci is still
: RE: integer-simple
I tried building an integer-simple 7.2.1-RC1 with 7.0.3 binary-install on
Ubuntu 11.04. ghci is still not happy:
chris@Ubuntu-11:~/etc$ ghci
GHCi, version 7.2.0.20110728: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done.
Loading
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
But when I repeat with INTEGER_LIBRARY = integer-simple (on quick test)
GHCi, version 6.12.3: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Note that 6.12.3 is quite old now, and neither that branch or the 7.0
branch are still being
On Friday 29 July 2011, 18:51:23, Chris Dornan wrote:
Hi All,
I am still having difficulty getting a plain GHC build with
INTEGER_LIBRARY = integer-simple. (I outlined my problem here yesterday
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2011-July/020631
.htm l .)
RHEL 5
: Daniel Fischer [mailto:daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 29 July 2011 22:02
To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Cc: Chris Dornan
Subject: Re: integer-simple
On Friday 29 July 2011, 18:51:23, Chris Dornan wrote:
Hi All,
I am still having difficulty getting a plain GHC build
will be happy to try them out.
Cheers,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lynagh [mailto:ig...@earth.li]
Sent: 29 July 2011 21:42
To: Chris Dornan
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Subject: Re: integer-simple
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Chris Dornan wrote:
But when I
-users@haskell.org
Dato: Tir, 23. feb 2010 00:04
Emne: Re: integer-simple by default
I wrote:
As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
been using a simple implementation of Karatsuba
multiplication for years. I
Isaac Dupree:
We could try to find out how large Integers get, in practice, in
existing Haskell code (this may be difficult to find out).
Daniel Fischer wrote:
Just as a data-point, my code rarely exceeds 128 bits (at least, beyond
that performance isn't so important anymore).
And Daniel,
As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
been using a simple implementation of Karatsuba
multiplication for years. I have never heard of anyone
complaining about it
Thanks for the data point.
Looks like they swapped
I think it would be great to have a benchmark, to test Integer
performance at various implementations. Perhaps it could test speed of
Int, Int64, Int32 as well (for computations that fit within them). I
suppose tight numeric loops are key to measuring performance in a useful
way (except for
I wrote:
As another data point, Python has also re-invented the GMP
wheel, likely for the same licensing reasons. They have
been using a simple implementation of Karatsuba
multiplication for years. I have never heard of anyone
complaining about it
Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
Looks like they
On 02/21/10 13:14, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 02:56:53PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
-what am I trying to accomplish (at least, performance-wise)?
I think opinions are divided on this.
Performance with word-sized Integer's is definitely important.
This is true.
We could
Am Sonntag 21 Februar 2010 19:56:54 schrieb Isaac Dupree:
We could try to find out how large Integers get, in practice, in
existing Haskell code (this may be difficult to find out).
Just as a data-point, my code rarely exceeds 128 bits (at least, beyond
that performance isn't so important
On 02/21/10 14:18, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Sonntag 21 Februar 2010 19:56:54 schrieb Isaac Dupree:
We could try to find out how large Integers get, in practice, in
existing Haskell code (this may be difficult to find out).
I suspect (just guessing...) that a more reliable way to find out is
You can dynamically link libgmp on windows. That might be easier:
Do you know if the dynamic link escape hatch has ever held up in
court? Last time I looked into it, the free software community had
mixed opinions. In any case, giving GMP the boot alleviates any
licensing concerns, makes the
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:11:15AM -0800, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
In any case, giving GMP the boot alleviates any
licensing concerns, makes the GHC build a little simpler, and allows
users to create standalone executables. Is there any reason we
shouldn't attempt to make integer-simple the
On 02/20/10 14:11, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
You can dynamically link libgmp on windows. That might be easier:
Do you know if the dynamic link escape hatch has ever held up in
court? Last time I looked into it, the free software community had
mixed opinions.
GMP is under LGPL, which is
On 02/20/10 14:37, Ian Lynagh wrote:
There's also HIntegerByInt:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2007-August/007909.html
although it would need to be changed to user lower level types etc.
that's true, (I wrote it), the current form uses a list-based
implementation with a lot
garious:
Static linking to GMP on Windows is sending me towards a bunch of red
tape at work. What can I do to make integer-simple the default
integer library for GHC? Need anything more than test suite and
performance metrics? Any date planned for the 6.12.2 release?
You can dynamically
20 matches
Mail list logo
