From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On elisp running native Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:59:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="115283"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (berkeley-unix) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 29 15:59:56 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iahkS-000Tjl-Gh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:59:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60004 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iahkL-0003Iz-Kh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:59:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47986) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iahk2-0003HM-5q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:59:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iahjy-0002GY-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:59:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:62552) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iahjx-0001f2-Rp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:59:26 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:akrl@sverige.freeshell.org [205.166.94.5]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id xATExG1N024852 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:59:16 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id xATExGI9021098; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:59:16 GMT In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:06:04 -0500") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 205.166.94.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242876 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > How 'bout measuring the time to byte-compile a given set of files, then: > first using the byte-compiled compiler and then using the > native-compiled compiler (where "compiler" here means at least cconv.el, > byte-opt.el, bytecomp.el, and macroexp.el)? I did the following simple test. I byte-compiled all files in emacs/lisp (avoiding sub-folders). Using two Emacs, one conventionally byte-compiled the other one after having loaded all native compiled files. Note that in this case all lisp files were native compiled at *speed 2*. The result of this very preliminary test looks like this. Please take this with grain of salt: | | byte-compiled | native-compiled | speed-up | |-------------+---------------+-----------------+----------| | interactive | 27s | 19s | 1.4x | | batch | 15s | 8s | 1.9x | To me makes quite sense that in interactive there's less difference cause of the re-display done in C anyway. To a quick look with perf seems garbage collection is also a considerable part of the result. I think is encouraging and I'd really like having somebody reproducing these kind of measure. I'll have more time to look into all of this in the week-end. Andrea -- akrl@sdf.org