stg_ap_v_ret porting crash: solved?
igloo at earth.li
Mon Sep 15 17:31:22 EDT 2003
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:18:43PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Starting with a reg compiler producing reg code and iterating
> > a standard
> > configure/make/make install with 6.0.1 gives these numbers on x86:
> > 70m5.850s
> > 86m27.550s
> > 86m26.350s
> > so it looks like this is about 25% slower, although I don't know how
> > much it will vary by architecture. This isn't purely testing GHC of
> > course, but I think it's probably pretty close.
> Interesting. Bear in mind that a lot of the time is spent in GCC, and
Ah, I hadn't thought about that, I had only considered the cases where
gcc was explicitly used to compile C sources.
> that is going to be roughly the same for registerised vs.
> unregisterised, so overall compile times don't look much different.
> However, I think you'll find that ordinary Haskell programs will vary by
> about a factor of 2 in performance between registerised & unregisterised
> (last time I checked was a few years ago, though).
Looks like it hasn't changed then - MAG's testsuite with some of MAG's
optimisations removed takes 5m55.710s vs 12m35.560s (compile times were
2m46.870s vs 3m18.610s).
> What are the binary sizes like?
before stripping and
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users