[armedbear-devel] Significant increase in build time
blake at mcbride.name
Sat Nov 6 18:11:00 UTC 2010
I'd really like to run a bench mark before and after the commit in
question. I spent a short time trying to run the benchmarks a while
back but was unsuccessful getting it to run. Can you help me with
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Blake McBride <blake at mcbride.name> wrote:
> That's helpful. Thanks. So now we need to do benchmark / runtime tests.
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Before going to bed, I did a quick test - as discussed over GMail chat
>> - to see how much they differ in compilation times on other software.
>> timing new code, Maxima compilation: 223.416s, loading: 25.8
>> timing old code, Maxima compilation: 204.063s, loading: 29.174
>> I have no idea of the variation of the Maxima compilation times; it
>> looks like the new code is 10% slower at compiling, but 20% more
>> efficient at loading. However, these were single runs, so my
>> conclusions may be way off, depending on the variations.
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Blake McBride <blake at mcbride.name> wrote:
>>> I hadn't built ABCL in a little while so I checked out the latest
>>> version today and built it. It seemed to be significantly slower than
>>> before so I decided to investigate. This is what I found.
>>> In the past I could build ABCL in 2:43. It now takes me 4:40. That
>>> (IMO) represents a pretty significant change in build time. I did a
>>> binary search and discovered that all of the change occurred at
>>> revision 12918 - Generic Class File Branch Merge.
>>> In general, I could't care less about the build time unless it is
>>> indicative of a problem that could rear its head in my application.
>>> Where is that time being spent? Is there a change in runtime?
>>> Loading? Compiling?
>>> I'd be real interested in this.
>>> Blake McBride
>>> armedbear-devel mailing list
>>> armedbear-devel at common-lisp.net
More information about the armedbear-devel