simonmarhaskell:
> Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> >Got some initial nobench numbers for ghc head -fvia-C versus -fasm, on
> >amd64:
> >
> >http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html
> >
> >Overall all of nobench, ghc -fasm averages 3% slower. Not too shabby!
> >There's some wid
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Got some initial nobench numbers for ghc head -fvia-C versus -fasm, on
amd64:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html
Overall all of nobench, ghc -fasm averages 3% slower. Not too shabby!
There's some wider variation on the microbenchmarks in
Got some initial nobench numbers for ghc head -fvia-C versus -fasm, on
amd64:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html
Overall all of nobench, ghc -fasm averages 3% slower. Not too shabby!
There's some wider variation on the microbenchmarks in the imaginary
class:
one
