Re: [Chicken-users] big prime number

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:11:40AM +0100, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote:
> Yes, indeed! CHICKEN 5 is exciting :) Thanks again Peter, for your ongoing
> efforts in pushing this forward!

Unfortunately, I just found out that something goes wrong when compiling
a program containing bignum literals: The number data can get truncated,
causing it to go from 22M to 2.1M which of course can be printed much
quicker.  So we cheered too soon.

In this program, the compiler actually does most of the work because the
value can be statically computed.  Running it in the interpreter gives
a much longer run time, like with the numbers egg under CHICKEN 4 :(

I'll have to figure out why it's so slow, but also why CHICKEN 5 is
messing up.  It's a great test case though! :)

Cheers,
Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] big prime number

[Kristian Lein-Mathisen]

Yes, indeed! CHICKEN 5 is exciting :) Thanks again Peter, for your ongoing
efforts in pushing this forward!

K.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Dan Leslie  wrote:

>
> Peter Bex  writes:
>
> > Now, the good news is that I also ran the program under CHICKEN 5 and
> > it took just under 17 seconds to complete.  Most likely this is because
> > the whole thing can be done completely inline, without any CPS calls,
> > which means a lot less allocation, which in turn means a lot less
> > garbage collections need to be performed.  So again many thanks to Felix
> > for pushing me to make all operators have inlineable C functions!
>
> I am very much looking forward to Chicken 5.
>
> :D
>
> -Dan
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users