On 27 October 2005 01:33, John Meacham wrote:
I think I might have found why (or partially why) ghc is so slow on
x86-64..
section 5.10 of the optimization manual
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/
25112.PDF
(which has a whole lot of good info for
On 27 October 2005 09:05, John Meacham wrote:
but an alignment issue sounds more likely, if we are stradling 4 byte
boundries with our 8 byte pointers and ints, that could affect things
very much. it is the number one cause of performance problems
according to the AMD optimization manual.
John, this is great stuff. There's clearly a lot we can do to improve
GHC's code, at least for fac :-) (I'd be really interested in any
numbers you have for larger programs too, eg. the nofib suite).
and now the generated assembly.
Main_zdwfac_info:
.text
.align 8
.text
On 26 October 2005 19:58, Wilhelm B. Kloke wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On 25 October 2005 10:01, Wilhelm B. Kloke wrote:
Try with splitting off: set SplitObjs=NO in your mk/build.mk.
Done with success. I just used the compiler to install darcs.
I am able to make the
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:38:20AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
gcc started generating this rubbish around version 3.4, if I recall
correctly. I've tried disabling various optimisations, but can't seem
to convince gcc not to generate the extra jump. You don't get this from
the native code
Hello Simon,
Thursday, October 27, 2005, 12:40:27 PM, you wrote:
SPJ That is, a C-- == C-- optimiser would be a nice independent project.
SPJ My reason for mentioning all this now, when it's still partly
SPJ vapourware, is to see if anyone else is interested. In particular,
SPJ perhaps a C--
Hello,
I was surprised about really big differences in running times between
6.4 and 6.4.1, whereby 6.4.1 is *much* slower:
*** 6.4: cpu-time interesting (3,3): 00:01:38.08
*** 6.4.1: cpu-time interesting (3,3): 00:05:58.91
Here we have a factor of about 3.6!! Are there others that have
Mirko Rahn wrote:
I was surprised about really big differences in running times between
6.4 and 6.4.1, whereby 6.4.1 is *much* slower:
*** 6.4: cpu-time interesting (3,3): 00:01:38.08
*** 6.4.1: cpu-time interesting (3,3): 00:05:58.91
indeed, I had similar results. You may try to find out
On Thursday 27 October 2005 13:11, John Meacham wrote:
I am not sure how much sense this makes though. I am no expert on the
spineless tagless G machine (which would make an excellent name for
a band BTW)
:-)
Ben
___
Glasgow-haskell-users
I have this new thing where I try to write down my ideas before I lose
them. so far I think it is going well. this is also available at
http://repetae.net/john/repos/jhc/docs/c-minus-monad.txt
Sorry if this is a bit raw or wrong, it is an idea congealing as it is being
written
10 matches
Mail list logo
