On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:47 +0100, Bertram Felgenhauer wrote:
GHC does opportunistic CSE, when optimizations are enabled. [...]
I see. Thank you!
Mattias
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Mattias Bengtsson wrote:
The program below computes (f 27) almost instantly but if i replace the
definition of (f n) below with (f n = f (n - 1) * f (n -1)) then it
takes around 12s to terminate. I realize this is because the original
version caches results and only has to calculate, for
The program below computes (f 27) almost instantly but if i replace the
definition of (f n) below with (f n = f (n - 1) * f (n -1)) then it
takes around 12s to terminate. I realize this is because the original
version caches results and only has to calculate, for example, (f 25)
once instead of (i
Hello Mattias,
I think you will find this thread from the haskell-cafe mailing list quite
helpful.
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Memoization
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg09924.html
Also, the Haskell wiki contains comments about techniques for memoization
along with references
Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008 16:18 schrieb Mattias Bengtsson:
The program below computes (f 27) almost instantly but if i replace the
definition of (f n) below with (f n = f (n - 1) * f (n -1)) then it
takes around 12s to terminate. I realize this is because the original
version caches
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:09:46 PM, you wrote:
you is almost right. but ghc don't share results of function calls
despite their type. it just assumes that value of any type may use a
lot of memory even if this type is trivial :)
example when automatic sharing is very bad
Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008 21:11 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:09:46 PM, you wrote:
you is almost right. but ghc don't share results of function calls
despite their type. it just assumes that value of any type may use a
lot of memory even if
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:49:40 PM, you wrote:
sorry fo r noise, it seems that i know ghc worse than you
Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008 21:11 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:09:46 PM, you wrote:
you is almost right. but ghc
Am Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008 21:56 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
Hello Daniel,
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 11:49:40 PM, you wrote:
sorry for noise, it seems that i know ghc worse than you
If only that were true.
I just know that GHC's optimiser can do some rather impressive stuff when
given
