On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 11:52 +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:58:17AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> >
> > Nobench does already collect code size, but does not yet display it in
> > the results table. I specifically want to collect compile time as well.
> > Not sure what the
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:37 +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Don, and others,
>
> This thread triggered something I've had at the back of my mind for some time.
>
> The traffic on Haskell Cafe suggests that there is a lot of interest
> in the performance of Haskell programs. However, at the mo
I added Don's three benchmarks and redid all my benchmarks with:
ghc 6.6.1
ghc 6.8.2
ghc 6.8.2 + bytestring 0.9.0.2
ghc 6.9.20071119
ghc 6.9.20071119 + bytestring 0.9.0.2
ghc head-as-of-yesterday-around-noon
ghc head-as-of-yesterday-around-noon + bytestring 0.9.0.2
I tried to get the
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:53 +0200, Cristian Baboi wrote:
> > The semantics of IO, and the guarantees of the runtime.
> >
> > IO specifies that (>>) means "compose two actions to make a larger
> > action which does the first actions, then the second action".
> >
> > [do {a; a;} is notation for a
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 15:21 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
> An updated bytestring library is at :
>
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/bytestring-0.9.0.2
>
> Enjoy! :)
Thanks!
-Peter
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskel
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 19:07 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
> Well, I'm not going to wait till Wednesday for the numbers!
But I got you to write down predictions before you ran the tests, which
is precisely what I wanted :)
> Summary,
>
> * Program 1 is fast, as expected, but exhbits a bug in t
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 21:18 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
> What is quite amazing is how efficient this program is.
Yep. I was very surprised too.
Turns out there *was* a reason to run those string benchmarks, eh? ;)
> improves things by a good amount, but I think we can revisit the low level
> pe
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 04:53 +0100, Daniel Fischer wrote:
> > Hmm. Lazy accumulator eh, on String? Should exhibit a space leak.
>
> Doesn't (with -O2, at least), seems ghc's strictness analyser did a good job.
> It is indeed about 10* slower than ByteStrings, but very memory friendly -
Daniel i
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 11:59 -0800, Don Stewart wrote:
> firefly:
> > What do you think the relative speeds are of the six small haskell
> > programs at the end of this email?
> >
> > All they do is read from stdin and count the number of spaces they see.
> > There are two that use strict bytestrin
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 14:34 +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Ok, I presume this is a guessing game and we're supposed to just look at
> the code without running and timing them.
Precisely :)
> > All they do is read from stdin and count the number of spaces they see.
> > There are two that use stric
What do you think the relative speeds are of the six small haskell
programs at the end of this email?
All they do is read from stdin and count the number of spaces they see.
There are two that use strict bytestrings, two that use lazy
bytestrings, and two that use the standard Haskell strings. Th
11 matches
Mail list logo
