Hi!
dsm...@roadrunner.com skribis:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
if it had another copy
Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi!
dsm...@roadrunner.com skribis:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been toying with is whether
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could skip the
portion of compile-time where the interpreter
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could skip
Oh, I was unclear. I meant that the existing copy of Guile would run
the compiler from the new copy of Guile.
In the worst case you'd have to bootstrap, but that's what we do now,
every time.
Noah
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Noah Lavine
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com skribis:
One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could skip the
portion of compile-time where the interpreter is running the compiler.
This is how most compilers
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me (anecdotally) that most of the build time is spent
compiling Scheme code, rather than C code.
One idea I had been toying with is whether Guile could compile faster
if it had another copy of Guile already around, so it could
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Hi,
This sounds like one possibility, but I think it might be inconvenient
to use that data to view how performance evolved over time.
Well let's try it and see. If it really is difficult or not useful, we
can just delete the data file(s) again.
I
Here's an idea for performance tracking. Please let me know what you
think.
- I think the main people interested in performance tracking are the
core Guile developers, so this proposal is primarily for them (aka
us).
- Because we all have different machines, we need separate tracking.
- So
Hi,
This sounds like one possibility, but I think it might be inconvenient
to use that data to view how performance evolved over time.
I was thinking we could have a dedicated machine running benchmarks,
say, everyday, and publishing plots somewhere.
The machine could be one from the GCC
On Sep 17, 2009, at 17:53, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I was thinking we could have a dedicated machine running benchmarks,
say, everyday, and publishing plots somewhere.
I'd suggest multiple machines, if possible. Different operating
systems (for example, I've seen that mutex performance
I think it would be good if we could track Guile's performance better,
and how it changes over time. But...
1. We don't currently have many benchmarks. There are just 3 in the
repo, and they're all pretty trivial.
2. I have no experience in, and no immediate feel for, how we manage
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
