From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirk Herrmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: status: separation of expansion/optimization/memoization/execution Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 03:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <15691.51367.455100.152498@blauw.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028425890 24814 127.0.0.1 (4 Aug 2002 01:51:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 01:51:30 +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 17bAYL-0006S7-00 for ; Sun, 04 Aug 2002 03:51:29 +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 17bAYt-0002Di-00; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:52:03 -0400 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17bAXu-0002AK-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA07243; Sun, 4 Aug 2002 03:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Han-Wen In-Reply-To: <15691.51367.455100.152498@blauw.xs4all.nl> 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:944 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:944 On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Han-Wen wrote: > 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? I measured it using "time guile < /dev/null" and repeated it several times. Each time the execution time varies, thus I tried to make out a general tendency. And, sure, the benchmark suite would be a better test, if it contained some relevant benchmarks. This is, up to now, not the case. However, didn't you say that you had some nice benchmark application called lilypond ;-) If there was a significant change due to your gc changes, I believe you would notice it, right? However, performance improvements are not the major objective of your current patches, at least that's what I understand: IMO the code cleanup is the important point here. Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel