Hello Neil,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:13:29 PM, you wrote:
Calls to System.Cmd.system, i.e. running external console processes.
It's a make system I'm writing, so virtually all the time is spent in
calls to ghc etc.
btw, if all that you need is to limit amount of simultaneous
Hello Neil,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 7:33:25 PM, you wrote:
How about using unsafeInterleaveIO to get a lazy suspension of the result of
each action,
and then using par to spark off each of them? If that works you can reuse
the existing
task-parallel system of GHC to do the heavily lifting
Hello Neil,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 7:33:25 PM, you wrote:
parallel_ (x1:xs) = do
sem - newQSem $ 1 - length xs
forM_ xs $ \x -
writeChan queue (x signalQSem sem, False)
x1
addWorker
waitQSem sem
writeChan queue (signalQSem sem, True)
waitQSem sem
Hello Neil,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 7:47:17 PM, you wrote:
para = mapM_ forkIO
I might try that tomorrow and see if it makes a difference to the
performance. While the majority of computation is in system calls,
quite a few of the threads open files etc, and having them all run in
parallel
Hello Bulat,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 7:50:08 PM, you wrote:
parallel_ (x1:xs) = do
sem - newQSem $ 1 - length xs
forM_ xs $ \x -
writeChan queue (x signalQSem sem, False)
x1
addWorker
waitQSem sem
writeChan queue (signalQSem sem, True)
waitQSem sem
Hello Bulat,
Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 8:10:43 PM, you wrote:
parallel_ (x1:xs) = do
sem - newQSem $ 1 - length xs
forM_ xs $ \x -
writeChan queue (x signalQSem sem, False)
x1
addWorker
waitQSem sem
writeChan queue (signalQSem sem, True)
waitQSem sem
Hello FFT,
Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:07:33 AM, you wrote:
this problem addressed there? Why is this supposed to be specific to
boxed arrays only: wouldn't GC have to scan the whole mutable array
whether it's boxed or unboxed?
you need to scan only boxes: if array just contains plain
Hello Dan,
Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:35:14 PM, you wrote:
the size of the sub-array. The test then fills a 10 million element array.
However, something about the benchmark makes it perform poorly for both small
chunks and large chunks. -sstderr reports that lots of copying occurs for
small
Hello FFT,
Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:32:53 PM, you wrote:
you need to scan only boxes: if array just contains plain cpu-level
numbers, there is nothing to scan
Are those the only legal contents of STUArray?
numbers, chars, vanilla pointers. UArray just mimics C arrays, after all
--
Best
Hello FFT,
Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:56:51 PM, you wrote:
Are those the only legal contents of STUArray?
numbers, chars, vanilla pointers. UArray just mimics C arrays, after all
I haven't gotten to learning about them in detail yet, but my hope was
that STUArray was like vectorT in C++,
Hello wren,
Saturday, April 4, 2009, 2:51:39 AM, you wrote:
On GHC 6.10 the use of -fvia-C had to be disabled because it conflicts
with the FFI (version 0.12.0.0 still used it, which is fine on GHC 6.8).
I'm still investigating the use of -fasm and getting proper benchmarking
numbers.
Hello Cristiano,
Sunday, April 5, 2009, 12:05:02 AM, you wrote:
Is it me or the above package is not included in Hoogle?
afair, Neil, being windows user, includes only packages available for
his own system
there was a large thread a few months ago and many peoples voted for
excluding any
Hello Gü?nther,
Friday, March 27, 2009, 11:30:41 PM, you wrote:
Some of the memoizing functions, they actually remember stuff
*between* calls?
what i've seen in haskell - functions relying on lazy datastructures
that ensure computation on first usage so this looks exactly like as
memoizing:
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:39:12 PM, you wrote:
The test consists in adding 1000 elements to an empty map.
+RTS -c -F1.1
then read about garbage collection
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Manlio,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 8:17:03 PM, you wrote:
So, now memory required is about the same as the C++ version, but how
can I optimize memory usage without having to tweak the garbage collector?
C++ doesn't use GC so why you compare?
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Don,
Thursday, March 26, 2009, 8:26:18 PM, you wrote:
+RTS -c -F1.1
It now requires 386 MB of memory, but is 4.7 times slower.
So, now memory required is about the same as the C++ version, but how
can I optimize memory usage without having to tweak the garbage
collector?
You'll
Hello Manlio,
Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 5:44:14 PM, you wrote:
divide _ 0 = error division by 0
divide = (/)
Equations for `divide' have different numbers of arguments
you should write
divide a b = a/b
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Andrew,
Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 6:29:18 PM, you wrote:
then it was thoughtcrime and that sort of things even more dangerous
for State!
He ONCE used unsafeInterleaveIO, but he never evaluated it, and never tried
it again!
2009/3/24 Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH allb...@ece.cmu.edu
On
Hello Vasyl,
Sunday, March 22, 2009, 8:25:02 PM, you wrote:
i believe that i already seen this problem here a few years ago :)
what search structure you was used? i think that immutable hash
(represented as array of lists) would be useful here
Hi!
Recently I've found interesting ACM
Hello Colin,
Friday, March 20, 2009, 9:18:59 AM, you wrote:
How am I supposed to edit a page on the Haskell wiki?
If I click on an Edit this page link, then Firefox prompts me to
choose a tool to open an application/x-external-editor. When i just
it should be a problem with your config, i
Hello Jeff,
Friday, March 20, 2009, 10:22:35 PM, you wrote:
As this continues to build, I guess the issue for me, and I'm willing
to help with it, is trying to figure out how to redistribute programs
written with gtk2hs. on Windows, people can just install the gtk2hs
libraries via the
Hello Don,
Saturday, March 21, 2009, 12:06:48 AM, you wrote:
i distribute my gtk2hs program for windows and linux. no problems, i
just included runtime libraries provided by gtk2hs team. it was with
gtk2hs 0.9.12.1 though, may be they don't provided updated archive for
newer gtk2hs versions?
Hello Matthias,
Thursday, March 19, 2009, 2:16:30 PM, you wrote:
1. use ghc -O2
2. use unsafeRead/WriteArrray
3. check that all calculations (step*, li/ri) are strict
Hey There,
I am trying to write a hash-algorithm that in fact is working, but
as you might have guessed the problem is the
Hello sylvain,
Thursday, March 19, 2009, 2:16:06 AM, you wrote:
Something is wrong: how can Haskell be faster than C?
1. you measure efficiency of libs, not compilers
2. don't forget about -O2/-O3
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Colin,
Saturday, March 14, 2009, 11:39:41 AM, you wrote:
I'm getting a runtime failure Error in array index. This causes ghci
to exit.
Is there a way to get it to break instead, so I can find out which
function is failing?
i recall two techniques - one is trivially define your own
Hello Don,
Friday, March 13, 2009, 8:08:57 PM, you wrote:
What is the reason why you have decided to use unpinned arrays
(ByteArray#) instead of pinned arrays (Foreign.Ptr)?
They prevent heap fragmentation (and in general are faster).
you probably mean faster alloc/gc operations, everything
Hello Dimitry,
Thursday, March 12, 2009, 5:42:14 AM, you wrote:
depends on your OS. for windows i use this code:
myGetArgs = do
alloca $ \p_argc - do
p_argv_w - commandLineToArgvW getCommandLineW p_argc
argc - peek p_argc
argv_w - peekArray (i argc) p_argv_w
mapM
Hello Jon,
Thursday, March 12, 2009, 12:49:35 PM, you wrote:
I think using it as a mascot is a bad idea: Haskell is so
slow, they even chose a sloth as the mascot.
and it will be absolute truth :)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Satnam,
Thursday, March 12, 2009, 1:08:58 PM, you wrote:
Perhaps this is just an indication of my dark and violent side, but
choosing an animal with a killer instinct might be a better idea. A
creature that would eat something small and furry as a mid afternoon snack
why not choose
Hello Mark,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 9:11:42 AM, you wrote:
Just wondering if Generics and Parametric polymorphism are one and the same
in Haskell.
haskell Parametric polymorphism is the same type of thing as Java Generics :)
haskell Generics provides ability to define procedures
Hello porges,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 12:35:18 PM, you wrote:
Most importantly (or awesomely?), every time Haskell infers the
type of a function you've written, you get *the most generic possible*
version, for free :)
and using generics, you can get function polymorphic on *any* type
Hello Gregg,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:17:41 PM, you wrote:
are not O'Reilly. Of all the billions of images from all the
cultures in the world available to us we can surely find something
that is witty or charming without being cute.
it will not be fun :)
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Wolfgang,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:06:37 PM, you wrote:
Hehe, I love it. Sloth is a synonym for Lazyness in English too, and
they're so freaking cute... :)
Same in German: The german “Faultier” means “lazy animal”.
russian too, if that matter. i was really amazed by this idea.
Hello Conor,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 6:59:58 PM, you wrote:
{-
-- Haskell Types with Numeric Constraints
-}
are you have in mind integrating results into
Hello Don,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 10:40:30 PM, you wrote:
I think uvector only works with certain types that can be
unboxed, while storablevector works with all types that
instantiate Foreign.Storable.Storable. I don't know about
vector. From the description of vector, I have the
Hello Don,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 11:01:31 PM, you wrote:
if uavector use ghc's built-in unboxed array operations (as
Data.Array.Unboxed does) then it's necessarily bounded to types
supported by those operations
And what is Storable limited to?
Ultimately they're all limited to the
Hello Xiao-Yong,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 11:52:50 PM, you wrote:
So it's me who understand it wrong. If I want some high
performance array with elements of custom data type, I'm
stuck with Array, anyway?
ForeignArray will be the best here. just make you type instance of
Storable. if you
Hello Don,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 12:12:07 AM, you wrote:
Right, so my point stands: there's no difference now. If you can write a
Storable instance, you can write a UA et al instance.
yes, if there is some class provided for this and not just hard-coded
4 or so base types
And GHC 6.6
Hello Xiao-Yong,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 12:28:45 AM, you wrote:
It goes beyond my current knowledge, now. How do you define
a custom data type as an instance of UA or Storable?
just look at existing instances. basically, for complex data type, you
just use instances for its basic types,
Hello Don,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 12:48:35 AM, you wrote:
unfortunately, Array library unboxed arrays still aren't based on any
Unboxable *class*
Hmm. Aren't all the array library types based on MArray and IArray?
So I can define my own say, new STUArray element type by writing an
Hello Manlio,
Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:28:13 AM, you wrote:
Using normal String type I can define a pattern like:
But if I want to use ByteString, what should I do?
This seems impossible, since ByteString data constructor is not available.
for numeric types, it works via Num instances.
Hello Sebastian,
Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:
i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1
after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and
therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ashley Yakeley
Hello Sebastian,
Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:08:38 AM, you wrote:
It just seems like duplicated work to me. They're still few enough
that I can scan through them and multi-select the ones I like and
then click move to top in a pretty short amount of time (and then refine
the ranking if I
Hello Stefan,
Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:47:25 PM, you wrote:
Wedel, Germany, I have developed a library for building distributed
MapReduce systems in Haskell.
Holumbus-Distribution consists of modules and tools for the
implementation of distributed systems in general.
Holumbus-Storage is
Hello Colin,
Saturday, March 7, 2009, 8:30:43 PM, you wrote:
Data/Tree/Game/Tree.hs:1:0: Failed to load interface for
`Prelude': it is a member of package base-3.0.3.0, which
is hidden
build-depends: base = 4
and which ghc version you are running? :)
--
Best
Hello friggin,
Saturday, March 7, 2009, 10:57:04 PM, you wrote:
dec = B.decodeFile C:/users/saftarn/desktop/bintest.txt = \a -
return $ (a :: M.Map (Int,Int) Int)
just a quick style hack:
dec = B.decodeFile C:/users/saftarn/desktop/bintest.txt :: IO (M.Map
(Int,Int) Int)
--
Best
Hello Don,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 5:22:46 AM, you wrote:
GHCi doesn't use the threaded runtime though. So given that:
Don, afair ghci compiled using threaded runtime since 6.6:
Prelude :m Control.Concurrent
Prelude Control.Concurrent rtsSupportsBoundThreads
True
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Manlio,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 1:10:48 PM, you wrote:
It *is* a problem with IntMap.
I have changed the program to not use any array concatenation, and it
still requires a lot of memory.
it may be problem with something else. in particular, check that
you don't have lazy thunks
Hello Manlio,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 5:35:33 PM, you wrote:
There are 100,000,000 ratings, so I create 100,000,000 arrays containing
only one element.
every array needs ~30 bytes - it's a minimal memory block ghc can
alloc for variable-sized objects. multiple this by 3 to account for
copying
Hello Daniel,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 5:47:36 PM, you wrote:
let v = map singleton' $ ratings contents
let m = foldl1' (unionWith appendU) v
v `seq` return $! m
The (v `seq` ) is completely useless.
Maybe
(size m) `seq` return m
would help?
i suggest
return $!
Hello mwinter,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 8:09:21 PM, you wrote:
anybody give me an idea what I am doing wrong?
1. add -O2 to compile command
2. add +RTS -s to run commands
your program execution time may be dominated by GCs
--
Best regards,
Bulat
(sequentially resp.
parallel), so the gc should be the same. But still using 2 cores is
much slower than using 1 core (same program - no communication).
On 3 Mar 2009 at 20:21, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello mwinter,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 8:09:21 PM, you wrote:
anybody give me
Hello Andrew,
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 9:21:42 PM, you wrote:
I just tried it with GHC 6.10.1. Two capabilities is still slower. (See
attachments. Compiled with -O2 -threaded.)
i don't think so:
Total time4.88s ( 5.14s elapsed)
Total time7.08s ( 4.69s elapsed)
so with 1
Hello Jon,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 2:22:55 PM, you wrote:
take 10 $ map (addDays (-1)) $ repeat $ utctDay $ zonedTimeToUTC now
take 10 $ iterate (addDays (-1)) $ utctDay $ zonedTimeToUTC now
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Neil,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 2:53:04 PM, you wrote:
That seems a reasonable description, but without checking with the
person who set the test, you may never know for sure. I personally
can't see any difference between your second version and the original
question...
he probably
Hello Manlio,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 6:30:51 PM, you wrote:
The process-data-1 program parse the entire dataset using about 1.4 GB
of memory (3x increment).
This is strange.
The memory required is proportional to the number of ratings.
It may be IntMap the culprit, or the garbage collector
Hello Manlio,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:16:10 PM, you wrote:
By the way: I have written the first version of the program to parse
Netflix training data set in D.
I also used ncpu * 1.5 threads, to parse files concurrently.
However execution was *really* slow, due to garbage collection.
I
Hello Kenneth,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 11:14:27 PM, you wrote:
I think my approach is turning out better because I'm:
- building up the IntMap using 'empty' and 'insert', instead of
combining 17,770 'singleton' IntMaps
(which probably results better GC behavior)
i don't read into
Hello Austin,
Monday, March 2, 2009, 11:51:52 PM, you wrote:
let's calculate. if at GC moment your program has allocated 100 mb of
memory and only 50 mb was not a garbage, then memory usage will be 150
mb
? A copying collector allocates a piece of memory (say 10mb) which is
used as the
Hello Daniel,
Saturday, February 28, 2009, 3:10:44 AM, you wrote:
print may waste a lot of time, locking stdout for every
line printed
hout - openFile (args!!1) WriteMode
mapM_ (hPrint hout) $ sort $ blocks content
? I find hardly any difference, though.
no difference. if handle
Hello Daniel,
Saturday, February 28, 2009, 6:20:09 PM, you wrote:
But they would not be equivalent if stdout has to be locked for each output
operation separately, but a file opened with openFile fp WriteMode was
locked then once and remained so until closed.
ghc Handles are locked for every
Hello Eugene,
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 10:28:13 PM, you wrote:
Thanks, I'll have a look at these. Treating unboxed stuff
polymorphically is anyways very interesting and would be good to use
in collections API that has been recently discussed (and which I
occasionally try to continue
Hello Eugene,
Friday, February 27, 2009, 4:42:03 PM, you wrote:
I'm exactly basing on them, but they don't have at least these things:
them means Edison or Collections typeclasses?
- Treatment for unboxed types (I don't know yet, whether it is
needed; but why do STUArrays have special
Hello Mads,
Friday, February 27, 2009, 6:27:52 PM, you wrote:
i made this lib back in the ghc 6.4 days, so it probably have a lot of
compatibility problems here and there :( i'm self still use ghc 6.6 :)
When I try to build ArrayRef 0.1.3 I get:
Control/Concurrent/LockingBZ.hs:159:54:
Hello Mads,
Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:08:17 PM, you wrote:
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Upgrading_packages
is more appropriate, see 2.3
Hi
For anyone who may care, I have googled a workaround. The problem below
is similar to the problem mentioned here
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:27:10 PM, you wrote:
It was about this: I needed to generate all possibilities for some
combinations and each of those had a numeric property, say from 1 to
1; I then had to count how many of the possibilities were of a given
category. So I
Hello Ross,
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:54:23 PM, you wrote:
the same loop using STArray, but accumArray provide you pure API for
such computations
And accumArray can also be used with UArray if laziness is a problem.
to be exact, for Array, STArray used internally
for
Hello Eugene,
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 5:32:14 PM, you wrote:
look at http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library/ArrayRef
it contains reimplementation of arrays library according to OlegSimon idea:
- Unboxed arrays now can be used in polymorphic functions, they are defined
for every element
Hello Felipe,
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 11:24:19 AM, you wrote:
Too bad 'Map' is exported as an abstract data type and it's not
straighforward to test this conjecture. Any ideas?
just make a copy of its implementation to test
btw, i always thought that it should be a way to overcome any
Hello Svein,
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 3:47:44 PM, you wrote:
btw, i always thought that it should be a way to overcome any export
lists and go directly to module internals. limiting export is the way
to protect programmer from errors, not security feature, and it should
be left to
Hello Duncan,
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 5:13:05 AM, you wrote:
That's actually rather surprising. The system time is negligible and the
yes, this looks highly suspicious. we use 1.5 seconds for 1.3 mb file,
and 0.3 seconds for 0.3 mb file, so it looks like readFile monopolize
cpu here, being
Hello Alexandru,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 7:38:31 PM, you wrote:
In Linux, if you want to find the PID of a process, you use getProcessID from
The GetCurrentProcessId function returns the process identifier of the calling
process.
DWORD GetCurrentProcessId(VOID)
you need to make FFI
Hello Jim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 6:17:54 PM, you wrote:
main = a `par` b `par` c `pseq` print (a + b + c)
two things:
1) that are grouping order? may be,
a `par` (b `par` (c `pseq` print (a + b + c))) ?
2) i recommend you to use 2 *same* computations.
otherwise, it's easily possible
Hello Khudyakov,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 12:58:59 AM, you wrote:
you could even pass it in a test data set to which it must be optimized;
after the program is compiled, the compiler runs and profiles it, measures
the results, and does another pass to make it faster.
it supported in gcc4
Hello Louis,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 4:16:10 AM, you wrote:
In the meantime, a brief summary:
a minor correction: the best gcc result shown in the thread was 50x
faster than Don's one, so you need to miltiple all ratios by a factor
of 50
Straightforward and simple Haskell code, written
at 5:21 PM, Bulat Ziganshin
bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Louis,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 4:16:10 AM, you wrote:
In the meantime, a brief summary:
a minor correction: the best gcc result shown in the thread was 50x
faster than Don's one, so you need to miltiple
Hello Daniel,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 2:36:57 AM, you wrote:
You're referring to the freak result of Dan Doel?
Come on, be serious, please. I have a Haskell result that runs in 7ms, too.
Just use a rewrite rule and hey presto :)
Dan, why you have not said the same about test where ghc
Hello Sebastian,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 2:55:38 AM, you wrote:
yes, you are right. Don also compared results of 64x-reduced
computation with full one. are you think that these results are more
fair?
Yes. Clearly so.
It still computes the result from scratch - it just uses a trick
wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Sebastian Sylvan
syl...@student.chalmers.se wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Bulat Ziganshin
bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Louis,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 2:30:23 AM, you wrote:
yes, you are right
Hello haskell-cafe,
since there are no objective tests comparing ghc to gcc, i made my own
one. these are 3 programs, calculating sum in c++ and haskell:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
main = print $ sum0 (10^9) 0
sum0 :: Int - Int - Int
sum0 0 !acc = acc
sum0 !x !acc = sum0 (x-1) (acc+x)
Hello Miguel,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 4:48:15 PM, you wrote:
Ahem. Seems like you've included time spent on the runtime loading.
for C, i've used additional 100x loop
sys 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.017s
While 3.201 vs. 0.066 seem to be a huge difference, 0.017 vs. 0.002 is
not that bad.
Hello Dan,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:39:25 PM, you wrote:
Not that I'd be sad if GHC could reduce that whole constant at compile time,
but GCC isn't doing 1 billion adds in 6 (or even 60) milliseconds.
yes, that's what was done actually:
22 0020 8D44D01C leal
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:44:44 PM, you wrote:
Nice! Now we know that gcc can calculate faster than Haskell can
calculate and print. Next time, use exitWith, please.
it was done in order to simplify sources. are you really believe that
ghc needs more than 1 millisecond to
Hello Peter,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:18:50 PM, you wrote:
So GHC is about 3 to 4 times slower as Visual C++ / GCC without
loop unrolling
why stop on disabling loop unrolling? there are lot of options we can
use if we want to make gcc slower :D
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:25:31 PM, you wrote:
it was done in order to simplify sources. are you really believe that
ghc needs more than 1 millisecond to print one number? :)
Well, I know that (Show a) is about as slow as you can get.
yes, but it's printed only once against
Hello Peter,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:34:04 PM, you wrote:
Well C# does it with a for loop in 2300ms, and when using a
IEnumerable sequence it needs 19936ms. Very much like the Haskell
code. But of course the Haskell code could optimize the sum I guess,
I assume it is using the lazy
Hello David,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 6:52:03 PM, you wrote:
In Haskell you're printing it... why not print it in C++?
in order to omit #include stdio line
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
___
Hello Don,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 7:41:33 PM, you wrote:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
This won't be comparable to your loop below, as 'sum' is a left fold
(which doesn't fuse under build/foldr).
You should use the list implementation from the stream-fusion package (or
uvector) if
Hello Thomas,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 8:22:33 PM, you wrote:
doesn't matter for testing speed
okay then, I wrote a faster Haskell version:
main = print Hello world
for you, any language will be fast enough :D
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:15:59 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Achim,
Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:44:49 PM, you wrote:
Turning this into a ticket with associated test will:
but why you think that this is untypical and needs a ticket? ;)
Bulat, you are right in every aspect. You never did anything wrong.
Achim, this is simplest code one can
Hello Manlio,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:54:00 AM, you wrote:
ghc -O2 naive left fold15.680
As a full comparison I would like to see time for
ghc -O0 naive left fold
he is still waiting :))) but that's really has only theoretical
interest, comparing ghc -O2 on
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 12:54:33 AM, you wrote:
so - why YOU think that ghc
generates fast code and this example is something unusual?
I think ghc has decent performance, and that there's room for
improvement. I don't care whether you compare it to gcc,
i'm asking
Hello Achim,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:17:08 AM, you wrote:
nothing new: what you are not interested in real compilers comparison,
preferring to demonstrate artificial results
...that we have a path to get better results than gcc -O3
-funroll-loops, and it's within reach... we even can
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:19:47 AM, you wrote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at Bulat √ it's been demonstrated
that ghc is slower than gcc for most cases at the moment (many
benchmarks will back this up), *however*, it's also easily verified
that ghc has had
Hello John,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:33:12 AM, you wrote:
Don't forget jhc:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:41:24 AM, you wrote:
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things
really aren't as bad as you're making out √ Haskell comes in in
general less than 3x slower than gcc compiled C.
you should look inside these tests, as i
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:41:24 AM, you wrote:
so, again: this confirms that Don is always build artificial
comparisons, optimizing Haskell code by hand and ignoring obvious ways
You need look no further than the debian language shootout that things
and yes - this is the
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:52:27 AM, you wrote:
i was pretty sure that jhc will be as fast as gcc :) unfortunately,
jhc isn't our production compiler
Why not? There's nothing stopping you from choosing any Haskell
compiler you like. If jhc gives you the performance you
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 1:55:33 AM, you wrote:
most of these tests depends on libraries speed. in one test, PHP is
1st. from 2 or 3 tests that depends on compiler speed, one was fooled
by adding special function readInt to ghc libs and the rest are
written in low-level
401 - 500 of 1995 matches
Mail list logo
