Hi,
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:39:14 +0100 Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:14:52PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
>> [long story about way too complex performance hacks]
>>
>> I'd have to seriously think about this and whether it's feasible at all.
>> It may not be worth it, due to the disad
> The scrutinizer doesn't seem to see that j is an integer, even though
> "lp" is not escaping, and is only invoked in one place, with an integer.
> I would have expected it to at least figure out it is a "number", but
> that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, it would be even better if
> it
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:30:42AM +0100, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> We must avoid the CPS-call, at all costs.
In many cases this is already avoided: a simple loop that uses the
loop variable to index a string or a vector will effectively be
rewritten to an inline fixnum version of + or -, due to t
>
> It turns out that the overhead of the generic vararg numeric operators is
> so much bigger that the total runtime of all the benchmarks with this
> small change in rewrites is only 30% slower than the non-numbers version
> of CHICKEN 5 master, instead of 100% slower! See the attached performa
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:14:52PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> > [long story about way too complex performance hacks]
> >
> > I'd have to seriously think about this and whether it's feasible at all.
> > It may not be worth it, due to the disadvant
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:14:52PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> [long story about way too complex performance hacks]
>
> I'd have to seriously think about this and whether it's feasible at all.
> It may not be worth it, due to the disadvantages I mentioned.
Good news, everyone!
I had another look a
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:09:23PM +0100, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> Micro-optimizations won't give much, as Peter said: the CPS calls are
> what's expensive and there is no fast path that one could take. If, for
> example one would implement "optimistic inlining" (as in the Feeley paper),
> where o
Am 11.02.2015 um 13:09 schrieb Felix Winkelmann:
Personally I'd be more than happy to take the performance
hit on this so long as I can rely on fx operations and/or
(declare fixnum-arithmetic) to recover the original performance.
>>>
>>> You can; I didn't change any of those. The "f
>>> Personally I'd be more than happy to take the performance
>>> hit on this so long as I can rely on fx operations and/or
>>> (declare fixnum-arithmetic) to recover the original performance.
>>
>> You can; I didn't change any of those. The "fixnum mode" probably
>> still works, too (as in "(decl
On 09/02/15 14:52, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 11:40:56PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
>>
>>> Hello CHICKEN hackers,
>>>
>>> I finally finished integrating the code from the numbers egg into CHICKEN
>>> 5!
>>>
>>
>> Wow, nice work.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 11:40:56PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
>
> > Hello CHICKEN hackers,
> >
> > I finally finished integrating the code from the numbers egg into CHICKEN
> > 5!
> >
>
> Wow, nice work.
Thanks, everyone :)
> Personally I'd be m
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> Hello CHICKEN hackers,
>
> I finally finished integrating the code from the numbers egg into CHICKEN
> 5!
>
Wow, nice work.
Personally I'd be more than happy to take the performance
hit on this so long as I can rely on fx operations and/or
(dec
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:54:24 +0100 (CET) Felix Winkelmann
wrote:
> This is an astonishing feat! Regardless of any future actions on this,
> I feel I have to express my awe...
I second Felix's words. Awesome work, Peter.
Best wishes.
Mario
--
http://parenteses.org/mario
_
Wow!
This is an astonishing feat! Regardless of any future actions on this,
I feel I have to express my awe...
felix
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
Hello CHICKEN hackers,
I finally finished integrating the code from the numbers egg into CHICKEN 5!
This is quite a big change, so I decided not to send patches to the list,
instead you can find this work under the "numbers-integration" branch.
If you were curious and checked it out before, you mi
15 matches
Mail list logo
