Greetings, I have put together a package to test possible implementations of the RealFrac methods for Double and Float (base-2 IEEE754) and uploaded a .tar.gz bundle to http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2271 . On the one hand, pure Haskell implementations, on the other hand implementations calling out to rint[f], trunc[f], floor[f] and ceil[f] from math.h. Both ways go via Integer by default, with a specialised faster implementation for Int (and narrower types, but those RULES haven't yet been written) enabled by a rewrite rule. Overall, the pure Haskell implementations don't fare badly on my computer. All give a speedup compared to the current implementation, for most conversions, pure Haskell is on par with or faster than the C-call (although that would probably change if the C functions were made primops). The FFI calls are significantly faster for properFraction :: Double -> (Integer, Double) and for round (except round :: Integral a => Float -> a when compiled via C, then native and FFI are on par). Sample results for the speedups against the current implementation (note: for truncate :: x -> Int, the Prelude value is fst . properFraction, not the rewritten float2Int or double2Int) are included in the tarball. I would appreciate feedback from your tests/benchmarks on other platforms, especially 64-bit platforms (mine is x86 linux, 32 bit). To run the QuickCheck tests, you need QuickCheck-2.*, to run the benchmarks, criterion. More instructions in the README. Thanks, Daniel