On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Neil Toronto <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/06/2012 02:08 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, <ntoro...@racket-lang.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> | Reimplemented really simple FFI functions (e.g. mpfr-prec, mpfr-exp) to >>> | avoid calling overhead >>> >> >> If you have meaningful benchmarks where this makes a difference, that >> may be useful to Matthew, since he recently was working on improving >> the FFI's code generation. >> > > I've got some benchmarks showing via timing loops that pulling a _long > directly out of an _mpfr takes just over half the time it takes to call > libmpfr to do it. It's enough to make me want to rewrite simple things like > `bfnegative?' in Racket. > > I won't, though, if Matthew has near-future Big Plans. Or Medium Plans. > > I see we have "tests/racket/benchmarks". Should I just drop the code > there, or is there some kind of procedure or protocol I should follow? Generally that directory is for benchmark Racket against other languages, so the program has to be cross-compatible. I think you are talking about a stress test, which can be used to monitor Racket's performance against itself in the future to catch regressions. That's in tests/racket/stress. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
