Am Dienstag, 17. Juni 2008 22:37 schrieb Dan Doel:
I'll attach new, hopefully bug-free versions of the benchmark to this
message.
With -O2 -fvia-C -optc-O3, the difference is small (less than 1%), but today,
ByteArr is faster more often.
Of course, without the list overhead, the ByteArr
On Wednesday 18 June 2008, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Dienstag, 17. Juni 2008 22:37 schrieb Dan Doel:
I'll attach new, hopefully bug-free versions of the benchmark to this
message.
With -O2 -fvia-C -optc-O3, the difference is small (less than 1%), but
today, ByteArr is faster more often.
Dan Doel wrote:
Issue 2: Reading from/writing to a MutableByteArray# is slower than an Addr#
This is, I think, the crux of the issue. The main content of the benchmark is
reversing/shifting items in an array. To get a somewhat easier look at the
core, I boiled things down to a benchmark that
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, Simon Marlow wrote:
So I tried your examples and the Addr# version looks slower than the MBA#
version:
Hmm...
I tried with 6.8.2 and 6.8.3, using -O2 in both cases. I tried the Ptr
version with and without -fvia-C -optc-O2, no difference.
I had forgotten about the
Am Dienstag, 17. Juni 2008 18:32 schrieb Dan Doel:
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, Simon Marlow wrote:
So I tried your examples and the Addr# version looks slower than the MBA#
version:
Hmm...
I tried with 6.8.2 and 6.8.3, using -O2 in both cases. I tried the Ptr
version with and without
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, Daniel Fischer wrote:
I've experimented a bit and found that Ptr is faster for small arrays (only
very slightly so if compiled with -fvia-C -optc-O3), but ByteArr performs
much better for larger arrays
...
The GC time for the Addr# version is frightening
I had an
I see that Dan Doel's post favoring Ptr/Addr#
has the same allocation amounts (from +RTS -sstderr) for Ptr/Addr# and the
MutableByteArray#
Everyone else sees more allocation for Ptr/Addr# than MBA# and see MBA# as
faster in these cases.
I myself (on G4) see more allocation [just like Simon
Am Dienstag, 17. Juni 2008 20:35 schrieb Dan Doel:
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, Daniel Fischer wrote:
I've experimented a bit and found that Ptr is faster for small arrays
(only very slightly so if compiled with -fvia-C -optc-O3), but ByteArr
performs much better for larger arrays
...
The
On Tuesday 17 June 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that Dan Doel's post favoring Ptr/Addr#
has the same allocation amounts (from +RTS -sstderr) for Ptr/Addr# and the
MutableByteArray#
Everyone else sees more allocation for Ptr/Addr# than MBA# and see MBA# as
faster in these cases.
I
Dan
John Dias is indeed spending 6 months at Microsoft to work on GHC's back end.
He's doing a pretty wholesale re-architecting job, so it will be a couple of
months before we have the new setup glued together, but once we do I hope that
we'll have a much more friendly framework in place for
10 matches
Mail list logo
