stg_ap_v_ret porting crash: solved?

Ian Lynagh igloo at
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?

magdcalc is

2730251 (reg)
7697141 (unreg)

before stripping and

1375696 (reg)
4771196 (unreg)



More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list