From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: Ready for Guile 2.2! Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:10:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bmt28qnm.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgs65l3c.fsf@gnu.org> <87r30nz275.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56809) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1BrV-0007Bl-JH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:11:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1BrQ-0008VN-Lk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:11:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r30nz275.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:35:42 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Thu 20 Apr 2017 14:35, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > >> ;; 2.724686s real time, 3.117062s run time. 0.880827s spent in GC. >> scheme@(guile-user)> (version) >> $1 =3D "2.0.13" >> > scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(guix scripts build) > scheme@(guile-user)> ,time (guix-build "libreoffice" "certbot" "xmonad" "= -n" "--no-substitutes" "--no-build-hook") > > [...] > > ;; 1.826528s real time, 1.994426s run time. 0.382750s spent in GC. > scheme@(guile-user)> (version) > $1 =3D "2.2.1" > > That=E2=80=99s a 33% speedup compared to 2.0. That is a 50% speedup compared to 2.0 :) If we consider its speed as being how many times you could do this per second, then 2.0 speed is 1/2.72, and 2.2.1 speed is 1/1.82. Speed ratio is then 2.72/1.82=3D1.4945. So 2.2.1 is 1.5x the speed of 2.0, or 50% faster :) Andy, who is not looking for praise, but who likes perf numbers :)