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: Enormous benchmark speedup Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:26:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248384372 6899 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2009 21:26:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Juhani =?utf-8?B?VmloZXLDg8Kka29za2k=?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 23 23:26:05 2009 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 4.50) id 1MU5ng-0008Ac-9I for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:26:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46079 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU5nf-0001Jm-MA for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU5nW-0001Hq-Gv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:54 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU5nR-0001Fq-FT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56619 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU5nQ-0001Fm-CQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:48 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:45727 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MU5nQ-0004dE-02 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:48 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66BAF90A; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.38.186.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE942F909; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:25:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: ("Juhani =?utf-8?Q?Viher=C3=83=C2=A4koski=22's?= message of "Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:49:38 +0300 (EEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 62D5BA40-77CF-11DE-AC5D-AEF1826986A2-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:8935 Archived-At: Hi Juhani, On Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:49, Juhani Viher=C3=83=C2=A4koski writes: >> > With recent changes in guile vm there are lots on improvements on the >> > Gambit benchmarks. >> >> Improvements compared to what? > > I should have been more concise.. You were concise, but not precise ;-) So here's a project, should you choose to be interested ;-) Sometimes we do things that we don't know exactly how they affect performance. We're working on getting decent measurement into Guile's build itself... I mean, we want to work on it :) But we're not measuring. I would really, really love a graph of performance over time on the various Gambit benchmarks. So for every git revision, a number (and standard deviation?) for every Gambit benchmark. Ideally displayed in tables and graphs. I just mention all of this to you because you said at one point that you liked systematically testing things ;-) >> This is not tail-recursive (because of the nested `ack' call in the >> `else' clause), which is why it can lead to a stack overflow. > > I understand that, but I reported this because interpreter (both 1.8.6 > and 1.9.0) run this test successfully but VM does not. Probably > real-world programs don't have so deep a recursion, although they might > when run with complex data.. This is a bug in the VM. The default stack is low, and we have no capacity to enlarge it on demand. We should keep it low and enlarge it on demand via overflow handlers. Peace, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/