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 oft
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 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.
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
> > ...
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 M
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
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
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 t
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
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 d
10 matches
Mail list logo
