Performance week 25/6-29/6
simonmar at microsoft.com
Mon Jul 25 06:33:49 EDT 2005
On 25 July 2005 10:07, Ketil Malde wrote:
> "Simon Marlow" <simonmar at microsoft.com> writes:
>> We're interested in performance issues with both GHC itself and
>> GHC-compiled code.
> I can think of a couple of things.
> One is the performance of Int64 (which unsurprisingly is inferior to
> Int(32) but more surprisingly, also to Integer). I've reported it
> previously, but can dig it up again, if desired.
Added to the list, thanks.
> The other is probably not as relevant, but I'll mention it anyway. I
> occasionally use rather large arrays, and UArrays can save a
> considerable amount of space. Sometimes, however, I want to store
> more complex structures than those UArrays are provided for. It seems
> to me that what I really want are *strict* arrays (which the compiler
> then can unbox automatically), and that these could be provided for
> any (single constructor) data type?
Manuel Chakravarty's flattened arrays are what you want; I'm not sure of
the implementation status though. Also, once we have associated types
it will be easier to do this (see the associated types paper for an
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users