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 differs
Hello,
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
>> Instead what's really needed is a special pointer-to-reclaimed-object
>> value that can be distinguished from valid Scheme values since that
>> value ends up in the car or cdr of weak pairs in hash table buckets. As
Hello!
Neil Jerram writes:
> (Ludovic recently suggested an optimization for constant additions, and
> I assumed that would require this kind of rollback, if the definition of
> `+' was later changed.)
I generally agree with the praise of dynamicity, but there’s a tension
between dynamicity and
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I wrote up a little summary about the new representation of lisp
> booleans. Maybe something like it will end up in the documentation of
> guile internals.
Really nice! Do you have ideas/preference for where this should go, or
would you like me to suggest?
> The pictur
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Neil Jerram writes:
>
>> Just checking this because Ludovic said recently that (SCM_BOOL_F ==
>> 0) would have nice properties for BDW-GC.
>
> Actually he wasn't quite right when he said that. :-)
>
> The issue with BDW-GC is that "disappearing
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 Compile
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Certainly writing (a b c . #nil) as (a b c) would be most natural and
> convenient, and maybe it's the best compromise, but I'm not entirely
> sure it's safe.
>
> What if we have an association list mapping symbols to booleans that
> came from elisp? Such a alist might lo
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,
Andreas Rottmann writes:
>> I checked the upstream tarballs and both 7.0 and 7.1 come with
>> ‘bdw-gc.pc.in’. Thus I suspect this is a packaging issue. Can you
>> report it on the Debian side?
>>
> I've taken the liberty to do so:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=546833
>
>
Hi,
Neil Jerram writes:
> Actually I think I just found and fixed one problem. From the time when
> a # was a SMOB, really_make_boot_program in vm.c was still
> using SCM_SET_SMOB_FLAGS to set the SCM_F_PROGRAM_IS_BOOT flag - which
> meant that it was setting flag 1<<32 :-) which obviously was
10 matches
Mail list logo
