Hello! Andy Wingo <wi...@igalia.com> skribis:
> On Thu 04 Jun 2020 09:50, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: [...] >> For the record, the optimizations currently used in (guix build compile) >> are between the new -O0 and -O1: >> >> (cond ((or (string-contains file "gnu/packages/") >> (string-contains file "gnu/tests/")) >> ;; Level 0 is good enough but partial evaluation helps preserve the >> ;; "macro writer's bill of rights". >> (override-option #:partial-eval? #t >> (optimizations-for-level 0))) > > Here fwiw I would use -O1. It is basically the same as -O0 except that > it adds partial evaluation and it inlines primcalls. If you are willing > to do partial evaluation, you are probably willing to inline primcalls > too; I think it typically leads to less code and the compilation time is > similar to -O0. Alright, let’s do that. >> ((string-contains file "gnu/services/") >> ;; '-O2 -Ono-letrectify' compiles about ~20% faster than '-O2' for >> ;; large files like gnu/services/mail.scm. >> (override-option #:letrectify? #f >> (optimizations-for-level 2))) > > Interesting. I think this is probably a bug of some sort that we'll > have to keep working on. Yeah I think memory consumption increases noticeably with letrectification, which in turns means more GC activity. > Note that in 3.0.3 there is also a new phase called "lowering". Before > a compiler from Tree-IL to language X is called, the tree-IL program is > "lowered" -- meaning canonicalized and optionally optimized. > > (define (lower-exp exp env optimization-level opts) > (let ((make-lowerer (language-lowerer (lookup-language 'tree-il)))) > ((make-lowerer optimization-level opts) exp env))) > > Similarly there is an analysis pass for warnings, which runs before > lowering: > > (define (analyze-exp exp env warning-level warnings) > (let ((make-analyzer (language-analyzer (lookup-language 'tree-il)))) > ((make-analyzer warning-level warnings) exp env))) > > These can be interesting to test different phases of the tree-il -> > bytecode path. OK, I’ll take a look. >> The profile looks like this: >> >> scheme@(guile-user)> ,pr (define t (call-with-input-file >> "gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm" (lambda (port) (read-and-compile port #:to >> 'tree-il)))) >> % cumulative self >> time seconds seconds procedure >> 13.16 0.45 0.40 anon #x1136458 [...] >> It’d be great to waive the anonymity of that first lambda. :-) > > I think I just fixed it :) Yay, thank you, it’s much nicer now! --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(system base compile) scheme@(guile-user)> ,pr (define t (call-with-input-file "gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm" (lambda (port) (read-and-compile port #:to 'tree-il)))) % cumulative self time seconds seconds procedure 16.24 0.52 0.49 set-source-properties! 12.82 0.47 0.39 ice-9/boot-9.scm:3128:0:module-gensym 4.27 0.13 0.13 ice-9/popen.scm:168:0:reap-pipes 4.27 0.13 0.13 ice-9/psyntax.scm:749:8:search 3.42 0.13 0.10 ice-9/boot-9.scm:2201:0:%load-announce 3.42 0.10 0.10 ice-9/boot-9.scm:3434:11:b 3.42 0.10 0.10 read 3.42 0.10 0.10 source-properties 2.56 50.34 0.08 ice-9/threads.scm:388:4 2.56 12.56 0.08 ice-9/psyntax.scm:1611:10:parse 2.56 0.08 0.08 module-variable 2.56 0.08 0.08 memoize-expression 2.56 0.08 0.08 ice-9/psyntax.scm:668:4:make-binding-wrap 1.71 0.08 0.05 ice-9/boot-9.scm:2790:0:module-ref-submodule 1.71 0.05 0.05 number->string 1.71 0.05 0.05 ice-9/boot-9.scm:1396:0:symbol-append 1.71 0.05 0.05 append 1.71 0.05 0.05 string-append 0.85 270.25 0.03 ice-9/boot-9.scm:220:5:map1 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Nowadays I freak out every time I see those weak hash tables show up. ;-) Well, given the size of the file, it’s no surprise that ‘set-source-properties!’ is called a lot, but it’s still worrying that it’s #1. (Perhaps an issue similar to <https://bugs.gnu.org/40194>?) > I think the reap-pipes call is a pretty bad sign, incidentally! Yeah, it was discussed recently and I can’t explain it: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2020-05/msg00019.html Thanks for your feedback! Ludo’.
