Hey Matthew, One dimension of analsysis that would be instructive would be to characterize the differences in core / stg for these different versions Also : am I correct in believing that these all are the exact same algorithm in terms of representation or am I overlooking some differences between the 3 different codes ? On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:07 PM Matthew Roberts <matthew.roberts@mq.edu.au> wrote:

My apologies,

The link to the source was broken by some repo work - I have fixed it and it should be stable now. This page was intended just to be a way of showing the results to my collaborators, not a full explanation that anyone can follow, but I thought the graphs at least show off what I am seeing.

Regardless, it is all there in the code and hopefully not too obtuse. I can improve the discussion on the page if enough people are interested :)

Matt

On 12 Feb 2019, at 5:14 AM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm looking at these links, but i'm actually having a hard time finding the actual different definitions of this microbenchmark...

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Richard Eisenberg <rae@cs.brynmawr.edu> wrote:

...

On Feb 11, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:

What exactly is “the alternative compile-time implementation”?

In my response, I interpreted this to be macro-expansion, the alternative we discuss in the paper. The paper includes a nice discussion of how the semantics differs between what we currently have and macro-expansion.

Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs <https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/DjjUCK1DOrC8NwxohMgjBd?domain=mail.haskell.org>