simonmarhaskell:
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Got some initial nobench numbers for ghc head -fvia-C versus -fasm, on amd64:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/x86_64/results.html
Overall all of nobench, ghc -fasm averages 3% slower. Not too shabby! There's some wider variation on the microbenchmarks in the imaginary class:
one case 20% faster, another 30% slower, average 2% slower.
nsieve is interesting... I'm looking into it now. Also the HEAD seems slower on that program.
On real programs though, 3% slower on average. The big benefit of course, no perl, no gcc and faster compilation times.
I'd thought that -fasm was a slight improvement over -fvia-C on x86_64, so this is a surprise to me. I know it's slower on x86, mainly due to the poor code generationg for floating point on x86.
Initial x86 numbers now up, note the (known) floating point issues: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/nobench/i686/results.html
You might consider discounting the programs that run for less than 0.1 seconds from the average, that's what nofib-analyse does.
Good idea. Will do. I'll see if I can increase the runtime on a few others.
BTW, what happened to imaginary/rfib? I find that a useful floating point microbenchmark.
Ah right. It was subsumed with the 'recursive' benchmark, but it might be useful to have back since its smaller. I'll add it. -- Don