Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I had a quick look at the code for
loop :: Int64 - Int64 - Int64
loop i r = if i == 0 then r else loop (i-1) (r+1)
It's quite bad. It's full of C calls.
It would be much better to do what gcc does and treat Int64 as a
primitive type, and just insert C calls for the
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:11 -0500, sam lee wrote:
Did you print it? I'm using same code with ghc --make -O2 and it
takes forever to finish.
Yes, you can see in the output that it prints the same answer in each
case. I was using r = 10^9 as you suggested.
I wouldn't call these answers the
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:35 +, John Lato wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:11 -0500, sam lee wrote:
Did you print it? I'm using same code with ghc --make -O2 and it
takes forever to finish.
Yes, you can see in the output that it prints the same answer in each
case. I was using r =
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Duncan Coutts
duncan.cou...@worc.ox.ac.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 10:35 +, John Lato wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:11 -0500, sam lee wrote:
Did you print it? I'm using same code with ghc --make -O2 and it
takes forever to finish.
Yes, you
Ross Mellgren schrieb:
Duncan, I think you must have some magics -- on my machine the original
code also takes forever.
Running with +RTS -S indicates it's allocating several gig of memory or
more.
Applying some bang patterns gives me ~8s for 10^8 and somewhat more than
a minute for 10^9:
Yeah, you know after sending the email (never a better time) I noticed
that the C version wasn't spitting out the right answer. I'm not
really sure why, I just replaced bigint with int64_t from stdint.h.
-Ross
On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Benedikt Huber wrote:
Ross Mellgren schrieb:
