l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello, > > Andreas Rottmann <a.rottm...@gmx.at> writes: > >> 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? > > Was it with ‘fixnum?’ inline, or with the ‘fixnum?’ instruction? > The numbers from my previous mail were with the "clever" `fixnum?' (i.e. the one that uses object-address and bit-twiddling), defined with `define-inline'. I have yet to produce numbers with `fixnum?' as VM primitive and the more complicated, partially-inlinable fixnum operators. I'll keep you posted.
> It’s ironic that while R6RS fixnums are a performance hack, they end up > being less efficient than unbounded integers in Guile. > Indeed. > Do you know how other implementations deal with that? > I will do some research on that topic, investigating Racket, Ikarus and Ypsilon -- these are the R6RS implementations, which I'm most familiar with (besides Guile, obviously). Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
