unofficial mirror of bug-guile@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Cc: 17147@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17147: Performance regression by 3000000% for evaluating "and" form
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:55:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878urpn4hn.fsf@yeeloong.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwg6kl90.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:21:15 +0200")

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>> (and x y ...) expands into (if x (and y ...) #f), so your huge 'and'
>> form turns into a very deeply nested expression, and this overflows the
>> compiler's stack on Guile 2.0.x.  Thanks to Andy's recent work on
>> expandable stacks in master, this case works properly there.
>
> I think you are overlooking here that a mere 10000-term expression here
> is taking 80 seconds to complete.  That's 8ms for each term
> corresponding to several million clock cycles.  The only way to arrive
> at such a performance impact is by at least quadratic behavior, and
> quadratic behavior is a bad idea.

Okay, good point.  Indeed, the expansion time of our 'and' and 'or'
macros is quadratic in the number of operands.  They are implemented in
boot-9.scm as follows:

  (define-syntax and
    (syntax-rules ()
      ((_) #t)
      ((_ x) x)
      ((_ x y ...) (if x (and y ...) #f))))
  
  (define-syntax or
    (syntax-rules ()
      ((_) #f)
      ((_ x) x)
      ((_ x y ...) (let ((t x)) (if t t (or y ...))))))

The problem is that the "y ..." pattern has to iterate down the entire
list to verify that it's a proper list, and this is done for each
operand.

The simplest solution would be to replace all occurrences of "y ..."
with ". y" in the two macros above, but that has the slight downside of
making the error message much less comprehensible if you use a dotted
tail in an 'and' or 'or' form.  Maybe that's not worth worrying about
though.

Alternatively, we could use procedural macros here, but we'd have to
limit ourselves to very primitive forms in the code because this is so
early in the bootstrap.

     Mark





  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-01  2:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-31  9:58 bug#17147: Performance regression by 3000000% for evaluating "and" form David Kastrup
2014-03-31 22:30 ` Mark H Weaver
2014-03-31 23:21   ` David Kastrup
2014-04-01  2:55     ` Mark H Weaver [this message]
2014-04-01  6:17       ` David Kastrup
2014-04-01  7:10         ` Mark H Weaver
2014-04-01  8:22           ` David Kastrup
2014-04-01 11:59             ` David Kastrup
2014-04-01 16:19             ` Mark H Weaver
2014-05-12  6:08 ` bug#17147: Another idea David Kastrup
2014-05-13 13:03 ` bug#17147: Scalability front and back David Kastrup
2014-06-04 14:18 ` bug#17147: [PATCH] Add versions of and/or avoiding O(n^2) argument matching David Kastrup
2014-06-05  1:09   ` Mark H Weaver
2014-06-05  4:06     ` David Kastrup

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=878urpn4hn.fsf@yeeloong.lan \
    --to=mhw@netris.org \
    --cc=17147@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=dak@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).