"Ludovic Courtès" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> skribis:
>
> > Noah Lavine 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
Hi!
skribis:
> Noah Lavine 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 coul
Noah Lavine 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 skip the
> portion o
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine 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 do it - you want anot
Noah Lavine writes:
>> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Noah Lavine 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 comp
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 wrote:
> Noah Lavine writes:
>
>> It appears to me
Noah Lavine 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 the
> portion of comp
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 is
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.
>
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
