At Sat, 01 Aug 2020 03:56:36 -0400, George Neuner wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 20:20:05 -0700 (PDT), > "wanp...@gmail.com" > <wanpee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >I noticed that the size of the CS version is 244% compare to BS > >version. Wondering why it became so large. Does that mean Chez Scheme > >runtime/vm 100 MB larger than the original one? > > > >Racket Mac OS X > > 64-bit Intel 116.7 MB SHA1: 521b5a264afcfb3f390afacc682987268f650a25 > > > >Racket CS Mac OS X > > 64-bit Intel 285.8 MB SHA1: 060f311fc6621c5797a62f98b743499fa4277793 > > > >https://pre-release.racket-lang.org/ > > > The CS version compiles to native code rather than portable bytecode, > so pretty much everything in the distribution is somewhat larger. It > adds up quickly.
That's still the best explanation I have, but I also think there must be something more to it. For example, the Chez Scheme boot files in uncompressed form add up to about 8 times the size of compiled Racket BC executable, but Chez Scheme doesn't have 8 times the functionality of the Racket BC executable (so it should have 8 times as much machine code). The machine code generated by Chez Scheme for its boot files is less compact than machine code generated by GCC or LLVM for Racket BC's implementation --- but, again, I don't think it's a factor of 8. So, I'm optimistic that I've so far overlooked something that can make a big difference. I've concentrated more on understanding the difference in the run-time memory footprints, and the difference there is not nearly so large. Racket CS now sometimes has a smaller memory footprint than Racket BC (e.g., peak memory use for a distribution build). Matthew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20200801120143.27e%40sirmail.smtps.cs.utah.edu.
