Author:
Hartel Pieter H.,Feeley Marc,Alt Martin,Augustsson Lennart,Baumann Peter,Beemster Marcel,Chailloux Emmanuel,Flood Christine H.,Grieskamp Wolfgang,Van Groningen John H. G.,Hammond Kevin,Hausman Bogumil,Ivory Melody Y.,Jones Richard E.,Kamperman Jasper,Lee Peter,Leroy Xavier,Lins Rafael D.,Loosemore Sandra,Röjemo Niklas,Serrano Manuel,Talpin Jean-Pierre,Thackray Jon,Thomas Stephen,Walters Pum,Weis Pierre,Wentworth Peter
Abstract
AbstractOver 25 implementations of different functional languages are benchmarked using the same program, a floating-point intensive application taken from molecular biology. The principal aspects studied are compile time and execution time for the various implementations that were benchmarked. An important consideration is how the program can be modified and tuned to obtain maximal performance on each language implementation. With few exceptions, the compilers take a significant amount of time to compile this program, though most compilers were faster than the then current GNU C compiler (GCC version 2.5.8). Compilers that generate C or Lisp are often slower than those that generate native code directly: the cost of compiling the intermediate form is normally a large fraction of the total compilation time. There is no clear distinction between the runtime performance of eager and lazy implementations when appropriate annotations are used: lazy implementations have clearly come of age when it comes to implementing largely strict applications, such as the Pseudoknot program. The speed of C can be approached by some implementations, but to achieve this performance, special measures such as strictness annotations are required by non-strict implementations. The benchmark results have to be interpreted with care. Firstly, a benchmark based on a single program cannot cover a wide spectrum of ‘typical’ applications. Secondly, the compilers vary in the kind and level of optimisations offered, so the effort required to obtain an optimal version of the program is similarly varied.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference59 articles.
1. Wentworth E. P. (1992) RUFL reference manual. Technical report 92/1, Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University.
2. Wentworth E. P. (1991) Code generation for a lazy functional language. Technical report 91/19, Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University.
3. Walters H. R. and Kamperman J. F. Th. (1995) Epic: Implementing language processors by equational programs. Technical report in preparation, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cited by
37 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Generating Well-Typed Terms That Are Not “Useless”;Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages;2024-01-05
2. Analyzing binding extent in 3CPS;Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages;2022-08-29
3. MultiMLton: A multicore-aware runtime for standard ML;Journal of Functional Programming;2014-06-18
4. Optimizing abstract abstract machines;ACM SIGPLAN Notices;2013-11-12
5. Optimizing abstract abstract machines;Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming;2013-09-25