On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:40:02AM +0100, Ketil Malde wrote:
> > I had done that, actually, before even my first post, and knew that it
> > changes little to the picture, at least on my system.
>
> I think Bulat was right on the money here: you're essentially testing
> the efficiency of writing integers. Presumably, JHC is better than
> GHC at specializing/inlining this library function.
Indeed, but isn't being better at specializing/inlining exactly what an
optimizing compiler should do. :)
In any case, these results are not atypical, generally, if jhc can
compile something, it ends up being 2-3x faster than ghc. After all,
C-comparable (or even superior) speed is the main goal of jhc
development. And if anything, I am more convinced than when I started
that the goal is achievable. With jhc today, C comparable performance
from numerical code is not difficult to achieve with some attention to
strictness annotations.
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆
repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________