From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bignum performance (was: Shrinking the C core) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg2spcxo.fsf@localhost> References: <87bkfartof.fsf@localhost> <175cf474-29c8-a482-072e-0de784ac59e8@gmail.com> <87o7jaqc31.fsf@localhost> <2d419e12-9239-de3e-47d0-38815a00025f@gmail.com> <87cyzqq7sx.fsf@localhost> <875y5gh075.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="24881"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Emanuel Berg Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 15 17:02:06 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 1qVvYb-0006Kl-D3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:02:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qVvXl-0000vt-DF; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:01:13 -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 1qVvXj-0000vL-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:01:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qVvXb-0000B5-DG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:01:09 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D946E240027 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:01:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1692111660; bh=GIHjyN4QWh+f12jbQWEROyCmnyVm+/CrSsPdiL5YoZU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=BFDVu8Qn9lYK5TRWpGZ1I8fIVP4QfAqtBpLqNJyXrTE8zQPBiDvfFNibEcWPOTaVm ZfmegFPYt1ekrxj1H5GyuQaKkqSdM9n9iZCcqKPabCxhBh6JSDA92NQwetZRi8vAfA uB98HQrQcqark0j/8VqFrdESXcvlJ9rNZFSy3dfKqrd6EbMyhEBsquMqTl7RaXY6pA 2ilxh0WqpYjxBg7xpRGzeKRrHfKUH2xkbjrBkPAlVtjt23Pii3KU5tS3yLdZPPjoZR qnFEypdNzAQBFtf0ZRXDLsvtvX89NKp1zLhKmS0xkIukGVBOHA36ssOUvQTT0oSpEO JtpMBxH7ZpKJg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4RQDwr1sjyz6tvw; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 17:00:59 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <875y5gh075.fsf@dataswamp.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:308761 Archived-At: Emanuel Berg writes: >> ;; (declare (type (unsigned-byte 53) reps num z)) >> ... >> Still ~3x faster compared to Elisp, but not orders >> of magnitude. > > A pretty good optimization! :O > > But what kind of optimization is it? The commented "optimization" is: "Hey, SBCL, do not use bignums. If ints overflow, so be it". > Also, what happens if you remove the OPTIMIZE declaration > as well? No difference. > Still, isn't the rule of the "beat the benchmark" game to beat > it as fast as possible? Yes, but when CBCL is orders of magnitude faster, it indicates something conceptually wrong in the algo. 3x is a matter of variation in the internal details (like extra type checking in Elisp that Po Lu outlined). -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at