From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Allowing the choice of a VM engine? Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:23:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <8739vocnr0.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbk3uj8c.fsf@gnu.org> <87sk3nt326.fsf@gnu.org> <87iq4gfmp8.fsf@gnu.org> <877hj5movz.fsf_-_@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283491224 29637 80.91.229.12 (3 Sep 2010 05:20:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 03 07:20:20 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OrOhG-0000ej-2r for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:20:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46452 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OrOhB-0001mz-2l for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:20:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43864 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OrOgy-0001mi-3x for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:20:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OrOgw-0001SU-Uv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:20:00 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:51212 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OrOgw-0001SO-Q8; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:19:58 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B0DD3B64; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 01:19:58 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=TRdJv+CtsRLC VEYK82eP8QM7jNs=; b=SkpsLRKj1SFl+hb9YwebR4fWFbXxqANJrU5cXkwyz4ey s7lbMyOwNJk1xr420aoJUz+Slt2XrijZN7zOgGhqx/DwpLcTEuqtuZ7LE+BclmxZ U7MJHDAYmfLLAbEhgcuVyTlzT8ADqEhqJWLE0IX7BAOM5Em58RVnmNcmnrXdhb8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=gHjGGN 6zzOfcOcsRuFi/6nz4Lym9IGDUGfmbSBBAoLtXdscc0RRDx7Tr9jaBjy3vkIaeS8 inTtH0z4l/aRAOorElOTbn9Lm0YDqzyW3sTrhaHtgy9V1AyboBZ7WvgxSGY1VDRn KUc7xkwjusEowAnQZBe1kQmTozMLpn4VwEh/w= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDC3D3B62; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 01:19:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [76.166.198.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83A52D3B61; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 01:19:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <877hj5movz.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= =?utf-8?Q?=22's?= message of "Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:04:16 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E44B2138-B71A-11DF-B808-030CEE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:10846 Archived-At: Hi :) On Wed 01 Sep 2010 09:04, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > PS: I=E2=80=99m reviving the thread because I=E2=80=99m consistently seei= ng a 10% > performance degradation in the SRFI-1 rewrite in Scheme, which I=E2= =80=99m > not comfortable with (not that =E2=80=9Chigher-level languages are > inefficient=E2=80=9D song again!). So, my thought is that 10% slower is actually pretty good. Of course without debug hooks things are going to be faster still, but would you care at all about this if the Scheme version happened to be as fast as the C version? But OK. I don't want it to be default, though. How do you feel about --no-debug, as we have already? We should default to the equivalent of --debug. Cheers, Andy Ps. I was going to say we should improve compilation instead, but the hot loop of fold is already pretty tight. 19 (local-ref 5) ;; `list1' 21 (br-if-not-null :L104) ;; -> 28 at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:408:8 25 (local-ref 4) ;; `knil' 27 (return)=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20 28 (new-frame) at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:410:15 29 (local-ref 0) ;; `kons' 31 (local-ref 5) ;; `list1' 33 (car) at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:410:21 34 (local-ref 4) ;; `knil' 36 (call 2) at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:410:15 38 (local-ref 5) ;; `list1' 40 (cdr) at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:410:39 41 (local-set 5) ;; `list1' 43 (local-set 4) ;; `knil' 45 (br :L105) ;; -> 19 at srfi/srfi-= 1.scm:410:12 --=20 http://wingolog.org/