Hello Matthias, Thursday, March 19, 2009, 2:16:30 PM, you wrote: 1. use ghc -O2 2. use unsafeRead/WriteArrray 3. check that all calculations (step*, li/ri) are strict

Hey There,

I am trying to write a hash-algorithm that in fact is working, but as you might have guessed the problem is the performance :) At the moment I am 40 times worse than the same implementation in C.

My problem is, I need mutable arrays which are the heart of that hash. The algorithm is round-based and within each round I need the value of certain positions in that array.

At the moment I work with an unboxed ST-Array at the crucial part

--- snip --- test list = runSTUArray $ do a_arr <- newListArray (0, 1752) list

let round i = do ain <- readArray a_arr (i-n) at0 <- readArray a_arr (i-t0) at1 <- readArray a_arr (i-t1) at2 <- readArray a_arr (i-t2) at3 <- readArray a_arr (i-t3) at4 <- readArray a_arr (i-t4) let li = ls $ (i - n) mod 16 ri = rs $ (i - n) mod 16

writeArray a_arr i $ (step4 li) . (step3 ri) . (step2 at1 at2 at3 at4) $ (step1 ain at0 i) mapM_ round [n..(n+t-1)]

return a_arr --- snap ---

I also played around with peekElemOff and pokeElemOff, but this isn't much faster. It took ~30sec with my Haskell-Code while the C-implementation need only ~1sec.

Is there someone who may have some hints for me, what I can do better, or just lead me in the right direction? :)

Thanks a lot in advance

-- Matthias _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com

Brettschneider:

Hey There,

I am trying to write a hash-algorithm that in fact is working, but as you might have guessed the problem is the performance :) At the moment I am 40 times worse than the same implementation in C.

My problem is, I need mutable arrays which are the heart of that hash. The algorithm is round-based and within each round I need the value of certain positions in that array.

At the moment I work with an unboxed ST-Array at the crucial part

--- snip --- test list = runSTUArray $ do a_arr <- newListArray (0, 1752) list

let round i = do ain <- readArray a_arr (i-n) at0 <- readArray a_arr (i-t0) at1 <- readArray a_arr (i-t1) at2 <- readArray a_arr (i-t2) at3 <- readArray a_arr (i-t3) at4 <- readArray a_arr (i-t4) let li = ls $ (i - n) mod 16 ri = rs $ (i - n) mod 16

writeArray a_arr i $ (step4 li) . (step3 ri) . (step2 at1 at2 at3 at4) $ (step1 ain at0 i) mapM_ round [n..(n+t-1)]

return a_arr --- snap ---

I also played around with peekElemOff and pokeElemOff, but this isn't much faster. It took ~30sec with my Haskell-Code while the C-implementation need only ~1sec.

Is there someone who may have some hints for me, what I can do better, or just lead me in the right direction? :)

You should be able to directly translate C into approximmately the same kind of code using STUArrays. Make sure to compile with -O2 and use unsafeRead/Write where you also do unchecked read/writes in C. An example: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=nsievebits&lang=ghc&id=1 -- Don