Hello Louis,
Sunday, February 22, 2009, 2:30:23 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?
Observation:
The best gcc result shown in the thread, if I recall, precomputed
the result of
I said nothing about fairness, and *never at any point said I thought Don's
results were more useful or fair.* What makes you think that's what I meant
to imply?
You have not responded to my separate concern that
For code that actively requires computation at runtime, I have seen
no examples
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. Don also compared results of 64x-reduced
computation with full one. are you think that these results are more
fair?
Yes.
Sebastian, that's not Bulat's point. He's saying that if we make that
optimization in Haskell, we should at least make the same optimization in
GCC for fair comparison. (Though I'm not entirely sure that that
optimization would be of any use to GCC, but that's a linguistic concern, no
more.)
No, he asked if comparing the D64 version with the straight gcc one was
more fair then comparing a version that precomputes the result with one
that doesn't. That's what I responded to.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Louis Wasserman wasserman.lo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sebastian, that's not
It's not practical at all. It's monstrously more complicated than C.
It would be much simpler to do it in C and use FFI.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Sebastian Sylvan
