--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we off-topic for this mailing-list?
I'd just like to respond to this:
Anyways, your shootout, your hard work, your rules,
but having rulings on what's acceptable be easier to
find would be nice.
People here have made the effort to develop
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could make an MVar version which did not use a meeting thread, and I
welcome someone to do that. I have no proof that the current solution
is really the fastest architecture.
I've done so -- on my machine it's
On 2006-01-11, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney wrote:
The old version with the meeting place thread has been disqualified
(along with Erlang submissions).
Is this reasoning explained and clarified anywhere, or did they just
move both to the interesting alternatives? The
--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-01-11, Chris Kuklewicz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney wrote:
The old version with the meeting place thread has
been disqualified
(along with Erlang submissions).
Is this reasoning explained and clarified anywhere,
or did they
On 2006-01-11, Isaac Gouy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-01-11, Chris Kuklewicz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Denney wrote:
The old version with the meeting place thread has
been disqualified
(along with Erlang submissions).
Is this
--- Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The forums there seem to be useless because...?
Because I can't find anything relevant (and I did
look). I can't even
tell where such an announcement would have been
made.
Ah! Useful for finding an announcement - maybe not.
otoh the forums do
On 2006-01-11, Isaac Gouy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah! Useful for finding an announcement - maybe not.
otoh the forums do allow QA without subscription.
And requiring subscriptions is necessary to avoid spam. Being able to
hash things out without checking yet another bulletin board regularly
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
the same is for Int32 (and i think other fixed-width integrals). i just
noticed that one simple loop in my program allocates 2.5 times more
data and works 2 times slower when loop variable switched from Int
to Int32
There's no reason that Int32 should be slower than
Hello Simon,
Friday, January 06, 2006, 7:11:41 PM, you wrote:
I'm not keen on using explicit unboxed values in these benchmarks, since
it looks so ugly. In most cases you can convince GHC to do the unboxing
for you, and I'm pretty sure it should be the case here too. Just use
ordinary Ints.
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could make an MVar version which did not use a meeting thread, and I
welcome someone to do that. I have no proof that the current solution
is really the fastest architecture.
I've done so -- on my machine it's comparable (within 1%)
Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
Your case tweak was for an older version of Chameneos that used an
older Ch channel implementation.
But I was inspired by your improvement to use Int# instead of data
Color, and I posted a version that seems faster than the winning one
that was submitted.
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ChameneosEntry
I note that
# Like the erlang entry, this uses a separate thread to match up two
# chameneos in the meeting room.
Which seems to me to be against the spirit of the benchmark, which
describes
Nice comment.
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2006-01-06, Chris Kuklewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ChameneosEntry
I note that
# Like the erlang entry, this uses a separate thread to match up two
# chameneos in the meeting room.
Which seems to me to be against
Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm not keen on using explicit unboxed values in these benchmarks, since
it looks so ugly. In most cases you can convince GHC to do the unboxing
for you, and I'm pretty sure it should be the case here too. Just use
ordinary Ints.
The syntax is not so pleasing, but it is
Hi Chris,
Rather than try to explain what I'm going on about, I decided to tweak
the code a bit myself. My version is about 10% faster than yours, and
doesn't use any explicit unboxery. I've put it in the wiki after your
version.
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ChameneosEntry
Could someone
haskell:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Hi Chris,
Rather than try to explain what I'm going on about, I decided to tweak
the code a bit myself. My version is about 10% faster than yours, and
doesn't use any explicit unboxery. I've put it in the wiki after your
version.
16 matches
Mail list logo
