From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Performance issue with guile-2.2 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:30:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87fuhcqykd.fsf@gnu.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492086690 6080 195.159.176.226 (13 Apr 2017 12:31:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:31:30 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 13 14:31:27 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cyduI-0001TJ-G8 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:31:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49045 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyduO-0000di-2a for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:31:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cydu2-0000dR-8B for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:31:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cydtz-0004WT-7B for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:31:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=50344 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cydtz-0004Vn-0S for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:31:07 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cydtp-0000vW-AK for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:30:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 39 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 24 Germinal an 225 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Cancel-Lock: sha1:zVMBErDu4zhBstd/1J4xbyZaTdY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:13602 Archived-At: Hi, Vladimir Zhbanov skribis: > Results on my machine are as follows: > > Guile 2.2: [...] > $ time /usr/local/bin/guile -s performancetest.scm > > real 0m35.920s > user 0m36.928s > sys 0m0.112s > > ================================>8================================ > > > Guile 2.0: [...] > $ time guile-2.0 -s performancetest.scm > > real 1m32.270s > user 1m33.164s > sys 0m0.140s > ================================>8================================ > > Apparently, 2.2 performs better, especially after compilation. So 2.2 is three times faster than 2.0, right? That sounds like good news. :-) Note that if you’re looking for performance, you definitely need to compile the code beforehand, both with 2.0 and 2.2. Ludo’.