From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: status: separation of expansion/optimization/memoization/execution Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:12:23 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15691.51367.455100.152498@blauw.xs4all.nl> References: Reply-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028376576 15703 127.0.0.1 (3 Aug 2002 12:09:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 12:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17axiw-00045A-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:09:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17axjQ-00081g-00; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:10:04 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17axib-0007t5-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:09:13 -0400 Original-Received: from blauw.xs4all.nl (blauw.xs4all.nl [213.84.26.127]) by smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g73C9CPI020668; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 14:09:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Dirk Herrmann In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.05 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:941 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:941 dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de writes: > The effect so far is, that booting guile takes noticably longer (at least > 15%), but for example executing the test-suite is almost as fast as before How do you measure that effectively? I now installed my new-gc guile, and starting it up takes as long as it used to (the speed up seems to have been disappeared.) Isn't the benchmark suite a much better test? Is there some magical command that shows the startup time? (Would be easy to implement, just do something similar to gc-stats). FWIW, I "installed" some of the GC benchmarks over here --pretty trivial-- and the code is GPL, but probably not (c) assigned. We can't accept it then, Marius (right?), so shall I try asking the guy for a disclaimer & assignment? (I think it has a slim chance working). BTW, on a completely different note: I realized that it should not be difficult to maintain coverage statistics for all primitive (implemented in C) subroutines: when they are invoked a flag is set. Is that possible? Wouldn't that be very good for testing the test-suite? Any thoughts? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel