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: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:32:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87h6ojrath.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22697"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:zC50hctCadAst5WM9uonfP3mztI= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 28 12:54:57 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 1qaZtV-0005Uu-Nw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 12:54:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qaZsn-0007m7-NK; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:54:09 -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 1qaUru-0002Ro-F6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:32:54 -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 1qaUrs-0008CQ-5V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:32:54 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qaUrq-0009ij-5t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:32:50 +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: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:54:06 -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:309417 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. Here is a new file: https://dataswamp.org/~incal/cl/bench/flet.cl The CL time is 0.84 vs Elisp time at 1.35. So here, CL is 61% faster! (format "%d%%" (round (* 100 (1- (/ 1.35 0.84))))) flet 0.839996 s real time 0.839262 s run time -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal