On my system, the C version runs about 9x faster than the haskell
version (with -O3 and -O2 -fvia-c -optc-O3 respectively). However, GCC
seems to produce about 70 lines of assembly for the main loop,
compared to about 10 from GHC. I suspect the speed difference is the
result of some heavy optimisation by GCC, which would need to be
hand-tuned for GHC. (I would be interested to see what this would be.
Unfortunately I don't know x86 assembly well enough to understand the
GCC output.)
On 21/08/07, Donald Bruce Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> phil:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:57:38PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > >GHC does some constant folding, but little by way of strength
> > >reduction, or using shifts instead of multiplication. It's pretty
> > >easy to add more: it's all done in a single module. Look at
> > >primOpRules in the module PrelRules.
> > >
> > >Patches welcome! But please also supply test-suite tests that check
> > >the correctness of the rules.
> >
> > Sucking another example out of comp.lang.functional:
> >
> > This:
> >
> > import System
> >
> > f :: Int -> Int -> Int
> > f s n = if n > 0 then f (s+n) (n-1) else s
> >
> > main = do
> > [n] <- getArgs
> > putStrLn $ show $ f 0 (read n)
> >
> > is 3-4x slower than this:
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <assert.h>
> >
> > int f(int s, int n) {
> > return n > 0 ? f(s+n, n-1) : s;
> > }
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > assert(argc == 2);
> > printf("%d\n", f(0, strtol(argv[1],0,0)));
> > }
> >
> > The generated assembler suggests (if I've read it correctly) that gcc
> > is spotting that it can replace the tail call with a jump in the C
> > version, but for some reason it can't spot it for the Haskell version
> > when compiling with -fvia-C (and neither does ghc itself using
> > -fasm). So the haskell version ends up pushing and popping values on
> > and off the stack for every call to f, which is a bit sad.
> >
>
> That doesn't sound quite right. The C version should get a tail call ,
> with gcc -O2, the Haskell version should be a tail call anyway.
>
> Let's see:
>
> C
> $ gcc -O t.c -o t
> $ time ./t 1000000000
> zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped) ./t 1000000000
> ./t 1000000000 0.02s user 0.22s system 5% cpu 4.640 total
>
> Turning on -O2
>
> $ time ./t 1000000000
> -243309312
> ./t 1000000000 1.89s user 0.00s system 97% cpu 1.940 total
>
>
> And GHC:
>
> $ ghc -O2 A.hs -o A
> $ time ./A 1000000000
> -243309312
> ./A 1000000000 3.21s user 0.01s system 97% cpu 3.289 total
>
> So, what, 1.6x slower than gcc -O2
> Seems ok without any tuning.
>
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
