[Ecls-list] strange things with declarations, ECL 9.6.2
gabalz at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 21:30:41 UTC 2009
Yes, you are absolutely right, it is not a complete comparsion, just one
aspect. BTW I forget to mention that my computer is a 32bit arch using
linux. Maybe it is useful for someone. And thank you for the help, not
inlining is a good candidate for the slowdown, because I usually use it to
split functionalities without the performance downgrade. I prefer this way
instead of macros.
2009/8/14 Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com>
> 2009/8/14 Gábor Balázs <gabalz at gmail.com>:
> > ECL:
> > real time : 119.914 secs
> > run time : 111.667 secs
> > gc count : 8798 times
> > consed : 30900318944 bytes
> > SBCL
> > 23.515 seconds of real time
> > 5,114,640,016 bytes consed
> > I also tried my library's speed test and that showed me that ECL is
> > times slower than SBCL.
> I get other values on my Mac OS X. ECL does 50s with 150,000,000
> consed and SBCL 16s with more consing. But that is not the point.
> Right now ECL is not inlining function calls. That means your code is
> boxing and unboxing numbers all the time, which is the cause for the
> > I know that ECL is not primarily designed for scientific computation
> > purposes, but I want to ask a few things.
> > - What kind of experience do you have about speed differences between ECL
> > and an other Lisp implementations (e.g. SBCL)?
> Right now this is not a fair comparison. ECL's type inferencer and
> inlining capabilities are in its infancy and work is in progress on
> that camp.
> > - Can you recommend me a good profiler for ECL? Should I use Slime or
> > somehow?
> ECL has its own profile package, which you can load using (REQUIRE
> Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
> c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ecl-devel