Many thanks for this speedy fix!
Michael
On 20/6/20, 03:23, "polyml on behalf of David Matthews"
<polyml-boun...@inf.ed.ac.uk on behalf of david.matth...@prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
You did run "make compiler" at least once after running "configure" and
"make", didn't you?
David
On 19/06/2020 18:17, Chun Tian (binghe) wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I rebuilt and installed PolyML 5.8 ('master', up to 0ad5aa8) and ran again
> the 'miller' selftests as Michael mentioned, but the results seem unchanged:
>
> ```
> Composite test on 91 ...
> (0.018s) OK
> Composite test on 123 ... [GC = 0.037]
> (0.013s) OK
> Composite test on 4294967297 ... [GC = 3.487]
> (0.376s) OK
> Composite test on 18446744073709551617 ... [GC = 84.370]
> (2.846s) OK
> Composite test on 340282366920938463463374607431768211457 ... [GC =
> 429.267] (21.935s) OK
>
> real 9m19.723s
> user 9m7.408s
> sys 0m12.139s
> ```
>
> I'm on macOS 10.15 (catalina) with 2,3 GHz Intel Core i9 (8 core). The same
> tests took less than 30s with PolyML 5.7.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Chun Tian
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:54 PM David Matthews <
> david.matth...@prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Phil, for reminding me of this. I've committed a fix (0ad5aa8)
>> for that. There was a tail-recursive function in your example that
>> returned a tuple. Poly/ML puts these on the stack where it can but in
>> this case it was causing the function to cease to be tail-recursive,
>> eating up the stack. The reason for the regression was a change in the
>> way tuples on the stack are handled in the 32-in-64 bit version. Your
>> example now works as it used to.
>>
>> Michael, it would be worth trying your code with the latest version to
>> see if this has fixed it. If it hasn't then presumably it's a different
>> problem and I'll have to investigate further.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 16/06/2020 09:58, Phil Clayton wrote:
>>> I also found that 5.8 can consume a huge amount of memory compared to
>>> 5.7.1. In my case, it was a very small example doing simple arithmetic
>>> operations (demonstrating Fermat's method to find pairs of factors) so
>>> it may be related. I have raised an issue for it:
>>> https://github.com/polyml/polyml/issues/121
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 16/06/20 02:30, Norrish, Michael (Data61, Acton) wrote:
>>>> I have some HOL code that runs to completion in ~24 seconds user time.
>>>>
>>>> On 5.7.1 it runs in about that much wall clock time too.
>>>> (Unfortunately, this test is running on a different machine,
>>>> necessarily, but this is an old Linux desktop which is far less
>>>> powerful than the new Macbook Pro which is running 5.8.)
>>>>
>>>> On 5.8 (updated for MacOS Catalina to the SHA above), wall clock time
>>>> is 8 minutes.
>>>>
>>>> The relevant code is the selftest in examples/miller/miller which is a
>>>> big arithmetic normalisation.
>>>>
>>>> On the Mac, memory consumption (as reported by the Activity Monitor)
>>>> gets as high as 20GB; on the Linux machine running 5.7.1, the
>>>> consumption remains very slight (top reports 3% in its %MEM column;
>>>> the machine has 16GB)
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> polyml mailing list
>>>> polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> polyml mailing list
>>> polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
>> _______________________________________________
>> polyml mailing list
>> polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> polyml mailing list
> polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
>
_______________________________________________
polyml mailing list
polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
_______________________________________________
polyml mailing list
polyml@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
