Hello John, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 8:54:35 PM, you wrote:
I know you've talked about performance in the past, and I don't want to start a huge argument, but do you have recent data to back this up? IIRC you're using ghc 6.6, yes?
i don't seen examples of high-performance code written by anyone else which would be as simple and as fast as C analogue. afaik ghc now can generate good code for tight loops, but gcc optimizations goes far beyond this. if you know specialists writing HP code in haskell and results of their work - please point us to these code
I haven't looked at H.264 (and I realize it's compressed, so the situation is different from my work), however ghc can generate very fast code for binary I/O
it's exactly example of tight loop. and let's compare HP code written for this task with analogous code written in C. i expect that haskell code is much more complex
. Check out (shameless self-promotion) http://johnlato.blogspot.com for my recent writeup on creating a high-performance, pure-Haskell, Iteratee-based WAVE file reader.
afaiu, it's 20-line equivalent of 2-line C code: for (i=...) a[i] = b[i] does this need any more comments? unfortunately, your post doesn't contain equivalent C code and its performance measurements, so i can't consider this as argument for ghc/gcc comparison. all that i see there is large complex code that proves that HP haskell programming is much more complex than C one
Sincerely, John Lato
anyway it's impossible due to slow code generated by ghc
-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com