Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hello. megane, 2021-01-20 17:48: > Sven Hartrumpf writes: > >> Hello. >> > [snip] >>> I need some -:hi option (only for the new GC!), otherwise it crashes as >>> follows: >>> >>> # nallch.x32 -:a0 -:o -:s4096k 0 >>> [pa

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hello. I wrote, 2021-01-13 22:24: > Hi. > > megane wrote, 2021-01-13 12:10: >> >> Sven Hartrumpf writes: >> >>> Hi Mario. >>> >> [snip] >>> Run options are: >>> >>> -:hi256m -:H -:hs0 -:o -:s4096k >> The comb

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hi. megane wrote, 2021-01-13 12:10: > > Sven Hartrumpf writes: > >> Hi Mario. >> > [snip] >> Run options are: >> >> -:hi256m -:H -:hs0 -:o -:s4096k > The combination of -:hi256m and -:hs0 pretty much guarantees these > patches won't help you.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hi Mario. Mario wrote, 2021-01-12 19:17: > Hi Sven, > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:44:04 +0100 (CET) Sven Hartrumpf > wrote: > >> Mario wrote, 2021-01-12 12:39: >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:42:31 +0100 (CET) Sven Hartrumpf >>> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hi Mario. Mario wrote, 2021-01-12 12:39: > Hi Sven, > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:42:31 +0100 (CET) Sven Hartrumpf > wrote: > >> Mario, 2021-01-10 10:03: >>> >>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 15:14:31 +0100 (CET) Sven Hartrumpf >>> wrote: >>> &g

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Mario, 2021-01-10 10:03: > Hi Sven, > > On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 15:14:31 +0100 (CET) Sven Hartrumpf > wrote: > >> Thanks for the patches and the tests! >> >>> I ran a relatively extensive set of benchmark configurations comparing >>> CHICKEN from master

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Prevent excessive major gcs by having decent amount of unused heap

Hi. Thanks for the patches and the tests! > I ran a relatively extensive set of benchmark configurations comparing > CHICKEN from master against CHICKEN from master plus the patches. I would like to run some real-world benchmarks. They are dynamically linked. Would it be enough to run them with

Re: [Chicken-hackers] ◍PATCH◍ Fix lfa2 type analysis for unboxing

felix.wrote, 2019-06-25 22:54: > This patch addresses the problem reported by Sven Hartrumpf > (#1624). Thanks for the fast patch, Felix. It fixes the problem #1624 and also the problems with my non-reduced sources. Ciao Sven ___ Chicken-h

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Eggs for Chicken 5

John wrote, 2018-03-22 12:22: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Sven> wrote: > >> I use a Chicken-compiled alexpander to get rid of syntax-rules when >> compiling >> some Scheme projects (with non-Chicken compilers). > I'm interested in this. Which compilers do you use that don't have >

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Eggs for Chicken 5

Hi John, hi Felix. Thanks for the ideas and links. I will investigate which one is better suited for my purposes. >> But if you use an expander as a separate preprocessing step for standard >> Scheme >> code, it should be possible to use the portable syntax-case package at >> >>

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Eggs for Chicken 5

Hi John. Thanks for your answers. John wrote, 2018-03-22 11:46: > There is no point in converting eggs until the Chicken 5 API has > stabilized, which only happened in the last few weeks. Oh, I will be more patient :-) BTW: Bootstrapping the git version from pre6 worked very well. > That sad,

[Chicken-hackers] Eggs for Chicken 5

Hi. Is there any rough estimate when eggs (like syntax-case) will appear for Chicken 5? The page http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-projects/egg-index-5.html lists no eggs at all. Ciao Sven ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org

[Chicken-hackers] Experiments with heap shrinkage, -:hs

Hi all. I would like to experiment with heap shrinking (-:hs) for long running, memory/GC intensive processes. I checked runtime.c and I read the following shrink condition: count < percentage(percentage(heap_size, C_heap_shrinkage), DEFAULT_HEAP_SHRINKAGE_USED) This would imply that heap

Re: [Chicken-hackers] make check is 40 times slower than make (gcc 4.9)

Hi. Till gcc is fixed, here is a simple work-around: if gcc uses -O0, the compile time drops from 2 h to 1 s :-) Ciao Sven ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

[Chicken-hackers] make check is 40 times slower than make (gcc 4.9)

Hi all. Some months ago, I stumbled across the fact that make check for chicken takes almost 2 hours with recent gcc versions. (The build without the check step takes only 2.5 minutes - very impressive. Measured again today.) Only one test is the culprit: the many-arguments test (in its gcc

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?

Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:40:09 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:38:37AM +0100, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:04:27 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: How about restoring the optimization option to the defaults and seeing what breaks? For me it was highly unexpected that CHICKEN

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?

Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:04:27 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: How about restoring the optimization option to the defaults and seeing what breaks? For me it was highly unexpected that CHICKEN was producing completely unoptimized code, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, so if this doesn't break on

Re: [Chicken-hackers] make check starts a.out which runs forever in the background

Hi Mario, hi Christian. SH: If I run make check, the output looks ok, but an a.out process runs forever in the background (100% cpu usage). It cannot be killed with SIGTERM, but only with SIGKILL. The a.out appears at the end of make check. MG: Maybe it is the annoying

[Chicken-hackers] make check starts a.out which runs forever in the background

Hi all. The git version of chicken shows an annoying behavior for some time. If I run make check, the output looks ok, but an a.out process runs forever in the background (100% cpu usage). It cannot be killed with SIGTERM, but only with SIGKILL. The a.out appears at the end of make check. (32bit

[Chicken-hackers] [Chicken-users] [PATCH] Make library tests compare numbers within epsilon

Hi Peter. Wed, 29 May 2013 19:06:26 +0200, Peter.Bex wrote: This patch should fix it, but it does in a roundabout way: converting the number to a string causes it to lose precision because of the default value of (flonum-print-precision). It's more explicit to check whether the two values

Re: [Chicken-hackers] will we have a release this year?

Thanks for all the release work! I am happy to report a successful installation with gcc 4.7.2 (released some hours ago), Linux, 64bit. Sven ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Update irregex to 0.9.0

Hi. Peter wrote: I decided to go ahead and update our core irregex to the latest version. The attached patches (all 4 of them) synchronizes us with upstream 0.9.0 irregex. This gives some performance improvements for submatches. And some severe bugs? csi CHICKEN (c)2008-2012 The Chicken

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] fix stack-overflow check

Hi all. Please tell the list when rc3 (as suggested by Felix) is ready. Sven ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] -O5 vs. -optimize-level 5

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:08:48 +0200, ckeen wrote: Thanks for reporting this, please open a ticket. I opened ticket #817. Sorry for the late feedback! No problem. I see that some people track open discussions :-) Sven ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list

Re: [Chicken-hackers] bootstrapping (again)

Hi again. Thanks Felix for helping me with bootstrapping more easily. The following random crash type remains: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:54:13 +0100 (CET), hartrumpf wrote: [panic] `##sys#error-hook' is not defined - the `library' unit was probably not linked with this executable - execution

Re: [Chicken-hackers] bootstrapping (again)

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:04:28 +0100, ckeen wrote: Sorry if I missed something, which commands do I need to run to reproduce the problem? Just one: the chicken-install command from my mail. ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org

Re: [Chicken-hackers] bootstrapping (again)

Hi Christian. Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:29:20 +0100, ckeen wrote: So the problem will occur if you install these extension with the installed chicken? Yes. Is this from a clean slate or are there old extensions hanging around? Old extensions were present. But I reran this test as follows: cd

[Chicken-hackers] bootstrapping (again)

Hi all. Is this a correct bootstrap script for building a git version from release 4.7.0.3-st (called chicken470)? export PLATFORM=linux export ARCH=x86 make C_COMPILER=gcc32 C_COMPILER_OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS='-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=core2' LINKER=gcc32 LINKER_OPTIONS=

Re: [Chicken-hackers] make target boot-chicken ignore ARCH and compiler flags

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:22:01 +0200 (CEST), hartrumpf wrote: I will go back to a released version till this problem has been solved. Just want to provide a positive report: I tried to bootstrap today (from an installed 4.7.2) and this time it worked. Thanks! Sven

Re: [Chicken-hackers] make target boot-chicken ignore ARCH and compiler flags

Thanks John. Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:49:58 -0400, cowan wrote: That's certainly a bug. Two workarounds to try: 1) Set ARCH as an exported environment variable before you start to build. No improvement. Sorry. 2) Failing that, try one of the 32-bit bootstrap compilers at

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Somebody broke the build!

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:05:48 -0500, cowan wrote: An attempt to build the trunk this morning failed thus: gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -DHAVE_CHICKEN_CONFIG_H -DC_ENABLE_PTABLES -I. \ -c -Os -fomit-frame-pointer csc.c -o csc.o csc.c: In function ‘f_498’: csc.c:2225: error:

Re: [Chicken-hackers] remove symbol extra-slot feature and add general symbol property-lists?

Yes or no? Y pgpIAp1F1QIph.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers