Forget it, my bad. On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:48, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
Ahem. Seems like you've included time spent on the runtime loading.
My results:
MigMit:~ MigMit$ gcc -o test -O3 -funroll-loops test.c && time ./test -1243309312 real 0m0.066s user 0m0.063s sys 0m0.002s MigMit:~ MigMit$ rm test; ghc -O2 --make test.hs && time ./test Linking test ... -243309312
real 0m3.201s user 0m3.165s sys 0m0.017s
While 3.201 vs. 0.066 seem to be a huge difference, 0.017 vs. 0.002 is not that bad.
On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:29, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello haskell-cafe,
since there are no objective tests comparing ghc to gcc, i made my own one. these are 3 programs, calculating sum in c++ and haskell:
main = print $ sum[1..10^9::Int]
main = print $ sum0 (10^9) 0
sum0 :: Int -> Int -> Int sum0 0 !acc = acc sum0 !x !acc = sum0 (x-1) (acc+x)
main() { int sum=0; //for(int j=0; j<100;j++) for(int i=0; i<1000*1000*1000;i++) sum += i; return sum; }
execution times: sum: ghc 6.6.1 -O2 : 12.433 secs ghc 6.10.1 -O2 : 12.792 secs sum-fast: ghc 6.6.1 -O2 : 1.919 secs ghc 6.10.1 -O2 : 1.856 secs ghc 6.10.1 -O2 -fvia-C : 1.966 secs C++: gcc 3.4.5 -O3 -funroll-loops: 0.062 secs
-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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