From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Mikael Djurfeldt" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile + Boehm GC: First Remarks Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:50:13 +0200 Message-ID: <66e540fe0606010150y3507de6el6f4cf0122f23ea6c@mail.gmail.com> References: <877j42r32u.fsf@laas.fr> <87irnmt0nk.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87fyipcpbz.fsf@laas.fr> <66e540fe0606010035l7fb513fg646da4c1d94920de@mail.gmail.com> <87y7wh2sbz.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149151866 12859 80.91.229.2 (1 Jun 2006 08:51:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 01 10:51:00 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flist-0006rD-8e for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:50:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fliss-0000Gy-FM for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:50:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Flisl-0000Gs-Sf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:50:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Flish-0000Gf-9g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:50:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Flish-0000Gc-3P for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:50:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [64.233.166.176] (helo=py-out-1112.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fliyt-0004IM-St for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:56:39 -0400 Original-Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b29so226588pya for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ES/afGvI93FkNW17mRuPluN9E+Jq62r1FILbOXXkv2GxHg0R0G66+gf711UyOp705Vvbonbs8lqaCfwoVQpN9xsQ2iTDO1AcvNCF/yDlldlOtQzUyYyH3KT03qF9Y0AqC2t0TPld2iZsqiBjF0s2idlClmywEX0fjVDB4K17jh4= Original-Received: by 10.35.123.2 with SMTP id a2mr602176pyn; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.35.10.17 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org, ludovic.courtes@laas.fr In-Reply-To: <87y7wh2sbz.fsf@laas.fr> Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: a28987f2a25de979 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:5954 Archived-At: On 6/1/06, Ludovic Court=E8s wrote: > "Mikael Djurfeldt" writes: > > > Yet, as long as the current GC is more efficient (as measured by > > performance tests), there is no reason to switch, right? > > Well, it's still unclear whether the current GC is more efficient, and > how much more if it is. Furthermore, the GBGC code is a few weeks old > so it may be possible to tune it a bit more. > > IMO, although I'm quite concerned with performance, I don't think it > should be the only criterion: maintainability and portability are > important as well. Certainly. It's just that Guile has, to some extent, and with the exception of a recent restructuring of the GC, had this tradition of sacrificing performance for all kinds of "idealistic" goals with the promise of increased future efficiency, getting more and more sluggish all the time. (It was quite efficient originally.) If BGC holds the promise of efficiency, it might be nice to achieve this before throwing out the current GC which is, btw, not unreasonably unmaintainable or unportable. The only point I would like to make is that it is silly to care too much of the amount of thinking which has gone into BGC and its broad usage if, in fact, it doesn't add anything of real value to Guile. > The fact that Bigloo uses BGC also tends to reassure > me: if Guile can someday perform as bad as Bigloo compiled code (or > simply, as bad as its interpreter), then I'll be very happy. ;-) But current sluggishness is not mainly due to the current GC. In fact, for a scheme interpreter there might be advantages of using a customized solution. One thing which would boost performance tremendously would be to integrate Keisuke's guile-wm code, or something a la QScheme. In any case, I'm impressed with your achievement and appreciate the extent of the work required. And I think it would be just great if this can be proven to be a road to better efficiency. I hope so! _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel