Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> I’m all for your suggestion.
>>
>> Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes:
>>
>>> + (define-syntax define-fxop*
>>> + (syntax-rules ()
>>> + ((_ name op)
>>> + (define name
>>> + (case-lambda
>>> + ((x y)
>>> + (assert-fixnum x y)
>>> + (op x y))
>>> + (args
>>> + (assert-fixnums args)
>>> + (apply op args)))))))
>>> +
>>> + (define-fxop* fx=? =)
>>
>> How about making something like this (untested):
>>
>> (define-syntax define-fxop*
>> (syntax-rules ()
>> ((_ name op)
>> (define-syntax name
>> (lambda (s)
>> (syntax-case s ()
>> ((_ x y)
>> #'(begin
>> (assert-fixnum x y)
>> (op x y)))
>> ((_ args ...)
>> #'(apply op args))
>> (_ #'op)))))))
>>
>> This way, there’d be no procedure call involved and ‘=’, ‘+’, etc. would
>> use the corresponding instruction in the base case.
>>
> That's an excellent idea, and would probably boost performance quite a
> bit.
>
Sorry to reply to myself, but new evidence has been produced :-).
Using the following macro:
(define-syntax define-fxop*
(lambda (stx)
(define prefix (string->symbol "% "))
(define (make-procedure-name name)
(datum->syntax name
(symbol-append prefix (syntax->datum name)
'-procedure)))
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ name op)
(with-syntax ((proc-name (make-procedure-name #'name)))
#'(begin
(define (proc-name . args)
(assert-fixnums args)
(apply op args))
(define-syntax name
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ x-expr y-expr)
#'(let ((x x-expr)
(y y-expr))
(assert-fixnum x y)
(op x y)))
((_ . args)
#'(proc-name . args))
(_
(identifier? stx)
#'proc-name))))))))))
It turns out that this does not have a great effect on the efficiency;
here are the numbers:
* stable-2.0 + rotty/wip-fixnum-speed (simple define-fxop*, clever fixnum?)
#+begin_example
% _build/meta/guile -e main -s benchmark-suite/guile-benchmark
--benchmark-suite benchmarks r6rs-arithmetic.bm
;; running guile version 2.0.0.133-e47c9-dirty
;; calibrating the benchmarking framework...
;; framework time per iteration: 1.1444091796875e-7
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fixnum? [yes]" 10000000 user 3.42 benchmark
2.2755908203125 bench/interp 2.2755908203125 gc 0.0)
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fixnum? [no]" 10000000 user 3.42 benchmark
2.2755908203125 bench/interp 2.2755908203125 gc 0.0)
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fxxor [2]" 10000000 user 6.96 benchmark
5.8155908203125 bench/interp 5.8155908203125 gc 0.0)
scheme@(guile-user)> ,time (run-benchmark)
clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime
23.81 23.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#+end_example
* stable-2.0 + rotty/wip-fixnum-speed (macro-based define-fxop*, clever
fixnum?)
#+begin_example
% _build/meta/guile -e main -s benchmark-suite/guile-benchmark
--benchmark-suite benchmarks r6rs-arithmetic.bm
;; running guile version 2.0.0.133-e47c9-dirty
;; calibrating the benchmarking framework...
;; framework time per iteration: 1.52587890625e-7
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fixnum? [yes]" 10000000 user 3.4 benchmark
1.87412109375 bench/interp 1.87412109375 gc 0.0)
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fixnum? [no]" 10000000 user 3.42 benchmark
1.89412109375 bench/interp 1.89412109375 gc 0.0)
("r6rs-arithmetic.bm: fixnum: fxxor [2]" 10000000 user 6.72 benchmark
5.19412109375 bench/interp 5.19412109375 gc 0.0)
scheme@(guile-user)> ,time (run-benchmark)
clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime
22.76 22.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#+end_example
So, that's around 5% improvment (on the ZIP benchmark) for an IMHO
significantly more hackish implementation. I'm not sure that's worth
it. WDYT?
Regards, Rotty
--
Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
