felix winkelmann scripsit: > cd to benchmarks, compile one (say "csc -Ob dynamic"), run it with > nursery settings -:s32k, -:s300k and the default, multiple times.
Okay. I also added 128K, my proposed default; the default on my current build is 256K. I ran 100 separate tests using a shell for-loop for each size. Here's what I got: Nursery size Mean Standard deviation 32K 0.208s 0.011s 128K 0.159s 0.014s 256K 0.154s 0.009s 300K 0.151s 0.010s This is on Cygwin using a machine as idle as I could reasonably make it short of unplugging the network cable. Obviously 32K is a bad idea, and I will leave it up to those with more statistical knowledge than myself whether these results are statistically significant (what stat I ever knew dissolved in a cloud of rust years ago), but eyeballing them I'd say there's not much to choose from in any of the last three. > Then tell me the nursery size doesn't make a difference. It does, at > least on Linux machines. My claim has never been that the nursery size as such makes no difference, but that the method for determining the best nursery size doesn't actually do so -- particularly under realistic conditions for a build. It weeds out the worst sizes but otherwise picks one more or less at random. Therefore, all it does is slow down the build. -- Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan wise wives welcome the spring [EMAIL PROTECTED] by moving the Unix. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.) (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif) _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
