From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?R29uZy1ZaSBMaWFvIOW7luWuruavhQ==?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On elisp running native - Update 9 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:04:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83sgl0lchm.fsf@gnu.org> <83imlwl9vm.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8uegykm.fsf@gnu.org> <74dd94a9-28cb-a5fd-dbc7-ab21009834ad@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039b57b05a8185c17" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="127036"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 15 07:05:25 2020 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 1jkhJE-000Wvw-NK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:05:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57938 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jkhJD-0003Ca-Pb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 01:05:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42468) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jkhIL-0002lz-2l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 01:04:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ej1-x641.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::641]:38783) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jkhII-0005aC-8J; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 01:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ej1-x641.google.com with SMTP id w16so15414339ejj.5; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:04:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wBg+7l/ZKvpkormBZ0kw3upXdKOrG/PrUpia6K7t8c0=; b=GCcE+Ncn3Kmqi5OriGzHWFUYqTtQlY94CKSBi3nTe3QcFw7IgtEsCFHvBYz61GDxZI rEdJvBh578Bn4TWZyko5Y7QdJ16jV2SLe/gIypQZUHI2YWMb1xRPH9GNvvXrJvsEt0xY MSEitxBR4TXFcLg6Sv/G53eEP7Qlp6/SsgHIU02HqlS5idYMNMlBqpmy0DYZB+IoXCiw v94p46HO4J4QErE66eGB8aOoGgNLoQSYNPRzRh76Tchc/EFWLsy1C80ZgzBK2Qrqt6Pw KeGbsMt8IkDIWal9MuD6IEeADvEV7bK8MBIAcdwOOTB8WUdlNgNN6Mq3mqBT/7DHb9AD nnOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wBg+7l/ZKvpkormBZ0kw3upXdKOrG/PrUpia6K7t8c0=; b=Eo9TXCCvUeALll3/vDvoJJVd9cB8oXbDeXkJRedKX0wUuGxx/QS9z0dFPctOxdbxef AyKgT7WaOwjq2wTSUbxQsKJ6vnu9ufQcZPEXZmtFWFMYxDaLDn3dWsWR1aFPoa/61cTo xvg7EYwOSUc4BoHHS4vIxYfuVeJRGiSR4G6VA7aNel+GeYz/JGmycQ2yIv54ScFzYOWd 6n8Tw4Puu9WHErQu1iGeM1tFIpKPKFPgiRWeiUiLeHZB26Q8rYDzHn0thjXTwmfLr1m4 8JvY65k5kO7ZiKbCUGM8/WVWcpRkAg6I+nGwynZr3I6N6FyOdkjK96iHtKomLigXz0mH z5XA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530JdhtcRal3pgGgdQsLaWDSWh/YQJbrToTWSosDjDtnSrvPxuGz 7NBaW8qCX4OlRQd8vaR2QTXb6+XLVXtAmg/F5W0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5silsOk1ukDfQ1IT/jRlSPv07+h0a5oH5RpGjyAu+BMAkd6e4u7ZRP30FtXDCZbrLEhCkcavcJK8FZ2F+kak= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b097:: with SMTP id x23mr11428015ejy.227.1592197463519; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:04:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::641; envelope-from=gongyi.liao@gmail.com; helo=mail-ej1-x641.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:252255 Archived-At: --00000000000039b57b05a8185c17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Andrea, Question: What's the difference between Update 1's and Update 9's benchmark table's byte code column? The byte code column's run time results have decreased roughly 78% from Update 1's 507.23s to Update 9's 114.91, that seems unbelievable if all the Update 9's byte code result are purely based on byte code without any natively compiled code. Are Update 9's byte code result based on natively compiled built-in function and byte code compiled benchmark functions or they are purely all byte code compiled? Or there are drastic changes in benchmark environment settings (hardware, number of repetitions) betweens these two updates? Thanks, Gong-Yi. On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 8:24 AM Andrea Corallo wrote: > Hi all, > > I wrote an update about what is going on in the native-comp branch. > > In summary is about the recent big improvements on compile time, lambda > performance and portability. > > https://akrl.sdf.org/gccemacs.html > > I believe in the current state the branch should be much more accessible > to 32bit systems and constrained hardware in general. > > I think the next topics coming for me are dynamic scope compilation and > primitive function advising. > > Regards > > Andrea > > -- > akrl@sdf.org > > --00000000000039b57b05a8185c17 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andrea,

Ques= tion:
What's the difference between Update 1'= ;s and=C2=A0 =C2=A0Update 9's benchmark table's byte code column?

The byte code column'= s=C2=A0 run time results have=C2=A0 decreased roughly 78% from Update 1'= ;s 507.23s to Update 9's 114.91, that seems unbelievable if all the Upd= ate 9's byte code result are purely based on byte code without any nati= vely compiled code.

Are = Update 9's byte code result based on natively compiled built-in functio= n and byte code compiled benchmark functions or they are purely all byte co= de compiled?

Or there ar= e drastic changes in benchmark environment settings (hardware, number of re= petitions) betweens these two updates?

Thanks,
Gong-Yi.=C2=A0
On Sun, J= un 14, 2020, 8:24 AM Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org> wrote:
Hi all,

I wrote an update about what is going on in the native-comp branch.

In summary is about the recent big improvements on compile time, lambda
performance and portability.

https://akrl.sdf.org/gccemacs.html

I believe in the current state the branch should be much more accessible to 32bit systems and constrained hardware in general.

I think the next topics coming for me are dynamic scope compilation and
primitive function advising.

Regards

=C2=A0 Andrea

--
akrl@sdf.org

--00000000000039b57b05a8185c17--