From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: funcall consing Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2022 13:53:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87ee5tm422.fsf@logand.com> <83fsq9gdhw.fsf@gnu.org> <8335m8hazn.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmpbgbmr.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee5q5kox.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5212"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tomas Hlavaty Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 02 19:55:57 2022 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 1n461N-000193-8z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2022 19:55:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38626 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n461M-0006Kq-2f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2022 13:55:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n45yy-00036l-MX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Jan 2022 13:53:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:60592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n45yw-0004gl-7W; Sun, 02 Jan 2022 13:53:27 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 637E78065C; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 13:53:22 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 31CEA8030F; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 13:53:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1641149601; bh=uGe0mTW25Rp/C2VhXPRujt6aHh2ruZ/pUFde/MscZag=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cnUjAcgpRq4/Oi6cGwVUf/Ie2awK29WCSDvtgSNvEPVQ/xXVVB6VMGUGFuKxFYYWX +3p47+GeVRUwbyEpKx6ZrZMVAmC+1piX/Z8WGIx8eWCtnDt/I5eywyOy8qc+5abX2l nhjXMOt1cqCLcAsuXhidoyWd+U+uJg+AYG+uUm937i86dxW2JPwuKAg5Wc8baCFh4A FsSmQwjIWNwNboGoVh0Yy8xubvSEhGBYwAnoPlqXGEE4kbq3mGE7Oys1oKVgQSaluq w/X3usbSVu8TbJfAchSwrn7BeHHaabMmGHBUAIKBff+ohy/a/QfR8q6nizypeofrdB HmFWx7h+I/Zvg== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0135B1203DF; Sun, 2 Jan 2022 13:53:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ee5q5kox.fsf@logand.com> (Tomas Hlavaty's message of "Sun, 02 Jan 2022 14:30:38 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -23 X-Spam_score: -2.4 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.4 / 5.0 requ) DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283956 Archived-At: > Otherwise benchmark-run is not really useful for what I need. In that > case, what is the preferred way to measure execution speed and consing? byte-compile the code, e.g. with `benchmark-run-compiled`. > I do not need absolute numbers, just something so that I can compare two > different implementations of the same thing and choose the better one or > focus on places to improve. Presumably that code will be compiled in the end, so you want to compare the performance of the compiled versions rather than the performance of the interpreted versions. The performance profile of compiled and interpreted code can be quite different. Stefan