On 07/04/2011 13:51, Björn Peemöller wrote:
Simon Marlow schrieb:
Incidentally this will be faster with GHC 7.2, because we implemented
chunked stacks, so unsafePerformIO never has to traverse more than 32k
of stack (you can tweak the chunk size with an RTS option). This is
still quite a lot
Simon Marlow schrieb:
Incidentally this will be faster with GHC 7.2, because we implemented
chunked stacks, so unsafePerformIO never has to traverse more than 32k
of stack (you can tweak the chunk size with an RTS option). This is
still quite a lot of overhead, but at least it is bounded.
2011/3/25 Thomas Schilling nomin...@googlemail.com:
unsafePerformIO traverses the stack to perform blackholing. It could
be that your code uses a deep stack and unsafePerformIO is repeatedly
traversing it. Just a guess, though.
Sounds reasonable. Here is a variant of the program without
On 25/03/2011 08:56, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
2011/3/25 Thomas Schillingnomin...@googlemail.com:
unsafePerformIO traverses the stack to perform blackholing. It could
be that your code uses a deep stack and unsafePerformIO is repeatedly
traversing it. Just a guess, though.
Sounds reasonable.
Hello,
we have a strange performance behaviour when we use unsafePerformIO, at
least with GHC 6.12.3 and 7.0.1.
Please consider the example program following at the end of this post.
Running the original code the execution time is about 26 seconds, while
uncommenting one (or both) of the
unsafePerformIO traverses the stack to perform blackholing. It could
be that your code uses a deep stack and unsafePerformIO is repeatedly
traversing it. Just a guess, though.
2011/3/24 Björn Peemöller b...@informatik.uni-kiel.de:
Hello,
we have a strange performance behaviour when we use
