| Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
| From: AndrevanTonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu>
|
| On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, AndrevanTonder wrote:
|
| > Amazingly, the r6rs cycle-checking version is consistently faster
| > by about 10%. I would imagine the reason for this is that the
| > loop is unrolled with respect to the r5rs version.
|
| Correction: I really should have compared the r6rs version with a
| similarly unrolled version of the r5rs version (below). Upon doing
| this, I find that the r5rs and r6rs times are indistinguishable in
| Stalin.
On which processor?
| This agrees with Kent Dybvig's experience in Chez.
length-circ accesses data from two locations simultaneously, while the
length-regular accesses only one. If there is no difference in speed,
then the whole list must be living in the L2 cache. Performance in
uncontrived list-intensive programs will not be identical.
Also, simply consing long lists sequentially will make their cache
footprints smaller than would consing during execution of a nontrivial
program.
Received on Tue Oct 03 2006 - 17:33:56 UTC