On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:35:30 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> Do you have a sense of why Racket performs poorly on the `paraffins` >> benchmark? > > I wouldn't go so far as "poor" for that result,
I only ventured that characterization because it's one of only 3 where Racket isn't within a factor of 2 of the fastest implementation, the other two being ctak and takr2, both totally artificial monstrosities. > but, anyway... I think > that benchmark turns out to measure mostly allocation. Racket in 32-bit > mode, where pair and vectors take up half as much space, runs almost > twice as fast as Racket in 64-bit mode. Is the Gambit allocator that much faster than ours? Or does it use less memory for pairs and vectors? -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users