Advertisement

The nofib Benchmark Suite of Haskell Programs

  • Will Partain
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

This position paper describes the need for, make-up of, and “rules of the game” for a benchmark suite of Haskell programs. (It does not include results from running the suite.) Those of us working on the Glasgow Haskell compiler hope this suite will encourage sound, quantitative assessment of lazy functional programming systems. This version of this paper reflects the state of play at the initial pre-release of the suite.

Keywords

Computer Architecture Functional Programming Benchmark Suite Real Program Benchmark Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Augustsson and T. Johnsson The Chalmers Lazy-ML compiler. Computer Journal, 32 (2): 127–141, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Adrienne Bloss, P. Hudak, and J. Young. An optimising compiler for a modern functional language. Computer Journal, 32 (2): 152–161, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Thomas M. Conte and Wen-mei W. Hwu. A brief survey of benchmark usage in the architecture community. Computer Architecture News, 19 (4): 37–44, June 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Richard P. Gabriel and Larry M. Masinter. Performance of Lisp systems. In Conference Record of the 1982 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, pages 123–142, Pittsburgh, PA, August 15–18 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Brent Hailpern, Tien Huynh, and Gyorgy Révész. Comparing two functional programming systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15 (5): 532–542, May 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Pieter H. Hartel. Performance of lazy combinator graph reduction. Software—Practice and Experience, 21 (3): 299–329, March 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Mateo, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Lynn Pointer, editor. Perfect report 2. CSRD Report 964, Center for Supercomputing Research and Development, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, March 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Jaswinder Pal Singh, Wolf-Dietrich Weber, and Anoop Gupta. SPLASH: Stanford parallel applications for shared-memory. Computer Architecture News, 20 (1): 5–44, March 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. C. Wray and J. Fairbairn. Non-strict languages—programming and implementation. Computer Journal, 32 (2): 142–151, April 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Will Partain
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations