From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bignum performance Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 02:48:54 +0200 Message-ID: <878r9oozd5.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <874jkzllqq.fsf@yahoo.com> <2dec78a7-76e0-8789-4d20-7f0f6effe28a@gmail.com> <87pm3neei7.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87cyzjdvpq.fsf@dataswamp.org> <871qfyfgjd.fsf@localhost> <87h6ojrath.fsf@dataswamp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33302"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:WXspPo925rub1X1KdcWOfzoTCXc= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 03 06:35:02 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qcepC-0008Nu-P3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 06:35:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcenY-0004Sg-6w; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:33:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcbIX-0004FW-B2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 20:49:05 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qcbIU-00034h-Sc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2023 20:49:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qcbIS-0000pK-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2023 02:49:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:32:52 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:309924 Archived-At: Ihor Radchenko wrote: > You can again compare Elisp with CL and let us know what is > being noticeably slower. It will be an indication that > something might be improved. Her is yet another file, https://dataswamp.org/~incal/cl/bench/inclist.cl The Elisp time for this benchmark is, with `native-comp-speed' at the default - for the benchmarks package - maximal optimization level, namely 3 - at 5.86 sec, while the CL is at 1.635993 sec. So here, CL is 258% faster. I run the benchmarks from Emacs, and the CL also from Emacs, with SLIME and SBCL. So that should be pretty fair, but maybe when all benchmarks are translated one could do the Elisp with batch and the SBCL not using Emacs at all. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal