Re: [Chicken-users] read-u8vector: types.db inconsistent with documentation
Evan Hanson ev...@foldling.org writes: Thanks Andy, this warning is indeed incorrect. A patch has been posted to fix it. Which has been pushed. Thank you gentlemen! -- May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you be free from suffering, and may you live with ease. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
SBCL is Public Domain/MIT/BSD, depending on the component. GMP is dual licensed as LGPL3 and GPL2. The licensing issues would impact those who distribute binaries built with SBCL, but only if they are statically linked to GMP. -Dan Stephen Eilert spedr...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Peter Bex pe...@more-magic.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:39:50AM -0700, Martin DeMello wrote: Post to /r/scheme about chicken's bignum performance. (Not my post, just figured it could use some eyeballs.) http://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/3b1ujw/performance_of_chicken_scheme_numbers_bignums/ Hello Martin, Thanks for posting this. We had already been discussing it earlier today in #chicken. I had another look at the code but I can't really find any obvious inefficiencies. It is indeed a bit faster with CHICKEN 5, but not by much. Of course, Guile is cheating by using GMP. If I compare it to another Scheme which has its own bignum implementation like Gauche, we perform about the same. It's interesting that sbcl is doing so well. Maybe I'm overlooking something seemingly minor but important? Cheers, Peter Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be cheating. http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2 Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal implications, if it does bundle GMP now. — Stephen ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users -- -Dan Leslie ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:39:50AM -0700, Martin DeMello wrote: Post to /r/scheme about chicken's bignum performance. (Not my post, just figured it could use some eyeballs.) http://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/3b1ujw/performance_of_chicken_scheme_numbers_bignums/ Hello Martin, Thanks for posting this. We had already been discussing it earlier today in #chicken. I had another look at the code but I can't really find any obvious inefficiencies. It is indeed a bit faster with CHICKEN 5, but not by much. Of course, Guile is cheating by using GMP. If I compare it to another Scheme which has its own bignum implementation like Gauche, we perform about the same. It's interesting that sbcl is doing so well. Maybe I'm overlooking something seemingly minor but important? Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
Peter Bex scripsit: Thanks for posting this. We had already been discussing it earlier today in #chicken. I had another look at the code but I can't really find any obvious inefficiencies. It is indeed a bit faster with CHICKEN 5, but not by much. Potential confounders are the I/O and the call to format. When I get a chance, I'll try running the core of the code on the various implementations on my Scheme machine (which I only have access to nights and weekends now, thanks to $EMPLOYER's paranoia). -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org An observable characteristic is not necessarily a functional requirement. --John Hudson ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:26:53PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:04:17PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote: Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be cheating. http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2 Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal implications, if it does bundle GMP now. Thanks for posting that; I hadn't looked at the sbcl implementation of the pi-digits benchmark, but indeed that page says Pi digits on the benchmarks game is currently a bunch of calls to GMP. This would *really* be cheating in my opinion, as it's not testing the language implementation but using nonstandard extensions that replace stuff that's already part of the core. I had just assumed it would be using the sbcl native implementation (which indeed is pretty damn good and almost 100% pure Lisp code). In fact, there are two implementations, one of which uses native operations. It is still faster than CHICKEN and very close to Guile/GMP: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidigitslang=sbclid=2#log It does use some type annotations, though. Adding some to the CHICKEN version makes it go a tiny bit faster, but not by much. Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Peter Bex pe...@more-magic.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:39:50AM -0700, Martin DeMello wrote: Post to /r/scheme about chicken's bignum performance. (Not my post, just figured it could use some eyeballs.) http://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/3b1ujw/performance_of_chicken_scheme_numbers_bignums/ Hello Martin, Thanks for posting this. We had already been discussing it earlier today in #chicken. I had another look at the code but I can't really find any obvious inefficiencies. It is indeed a bit faster with CHICKEN 5, but not by much. Of course, Guile is cheating by using GMP. If I compare it to another Scheme which has its own bignum implementation like Gauche, we perform about the same. It's interesting that sbcl is doing so well. Maybe I'm overlooking something seemingly minor but important? Cheers, Peter Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be cheating. http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2 Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal implications, if it does bundle GMP now. — Stephen ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:59:59PM -0400, co...@ccil.org wrote: Peter Bex scripsit: Thanks for posting this. We had already been discussing it earlier today in #chicken. I had another look at the code but I can't really find any obvious inefficiencies. It is indeed a bit faster with CHICKEN 5, but not by much. Potential confounders are the I/O and the call to format. When I get a chance, I'll try running the core of the code on the various implementations on my Scheme machine (which I only have access to nights and weekends now, thanks to $EMPLOYER's paranoia). I already removed the use of the format egg (the code contains a commented-out version that relies only on display), and even completely disable the println call. It's hard to be sure, but it *looks* like the majority of the time is being spent in the division procedures. Seeing how it fares on other Schemes would be interesting though! Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:04:17PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote: Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be cheating. http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2 Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal implications, if it does bundle GMP now. Thanks for posting that; I hadn't looked at the sbcl implementation of the pi-digits benchmark, but indeed that page says Pi digits on the benchmarks game is currently a bunch of calls to GMP. This would *really* be cheating in my opinion, as it's not testing the language implementation but using nonstandard extensions that replace stuff that's already part of the core. I had just assumed it would be using the sbcl native implementation (which indeed is pretty damn good and almost 100% pure Lisp code). Cheers, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
Peter Bex scripsit: Of course, Guile is cheating by using GMP. If I compare it to another Scheme which has its own bignum implementation like Gauche, we perform about the same. It's interesting that sbcl is doing so well. Maybe I'm overlooking something seemingly minor but important? Here's a remark from the SBLC ideas page that may be helpful: Integer division is notorious for being slow. However, it is also known that the divisor is constant in the vast majority of cases, and serious compilers exploit that fact to simplify divisions into sequences of simpler multiplications, shifts, and additions. SBCL implements such a simplification only for truncated division of unsigned machine words. Floor and ceiling are less commonly supported natively in programming languages, and there is a dearth of literature describing how to simplify them. However, it is possible to do so, for both signed and unsigned machine integers. It is also possible to specialise the routines for tagged arithmetic. A complete execution of this project would include the development of simplification routines for signed and unsigned truncate, floor and ceiling divisions by integer constants. Some of the simplifications, particularly those concerning tagged integers, will be widely applicable and likely novel. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Peter Bex pe...@more-magic.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:26:53PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:04:17PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote: Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be cheating. http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2 Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal implications, if it does bundle GMP now. Thanks for posting that; I hadn't looked at the sbcl implementation of the pi-digits benchmark, but indeed that page says Pi digits on the benchmarks game is currently a bunch of calls to GMP. This would *really* be cheating in my opinion, as it's not testing the language implementation but using nonstandard extensions that replace stuff that's already part of the core. I had just assumed it would be using the sbcl native implementation (which indeed is pretty damn good and almost 100% pure Lisp code). In fact, there are two implementations, one of which uses native operations. It is still faster than CHICKEN and very close to Guile/GMP: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidigitslang=sbclid=2#log It does use some type annotations, though. Adding some to the CHICKEN version makes it go a tiny bit faster, but not by much. Cheers, Peter That compilation output is amazing! ; note: forced to do GENERIC-* (cost 30) ; unable to do inline fixnum arithmetic (cost 4) because: ; The first argument is a INTEGER, not a FIXNUM. ; The result is a (VALUES INTEGER OPTIONAL), not a (VALUES FIXNUM REST T). ; unable to do inline (signed-byte 32) arithmetic (cost 5) because: ; The first argument is a INTEGER, not a (SIGNED-BYTE 32). ; The result is a (VALUES INTEGER OPTIONAL), not a (VALUES ; (SIGNED-BYTE 32) REST ; T). From the benchmark page ( http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=pidigits#about ): In addition to language specific multiprecision arithmetic, we will accept programs that use GMP http://gmplib.org/. So, the cheating is official. Let's cheat too! *I fail to see the point though. If it's a programming language shootout, does it make sense to offload the meat of the processing to GMP?* *Do they intend to measure the FFI performance?* — Stephen ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] performance of bignums
Post to /r/scheme about chicken's bignum performance. (Not my post, just figured it could use some eyeballs.) http://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/3b1ujw/performance_of_chicken_scheme_numbers_bignums/ martin ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] callbacks returning twice
Hi all, for a couple of days I've been looking into iup for chicken. This is close to the best thing since sliced bread in a way. Except that it crashes all the time. callback returned twice So what's the recipe to hit that problem? (The code is fairly trivial; I'm just exploring. Actually I was about to ask what I'm doing there in the first module is so basic textbook stuff, which egg do I actually want to use instead of mimicking it here? - It registers some callbacks around data to propagate updates to the gui elements.) Thanks for any suggestions. /Jörg (I attach my code here for reference. Just in case. It really does not too much; the second and third tab are only useful in connection with a server, just the first one usable out of the box. Not much different to csi, just with a gui.) (use iup) (use srfi-18) (use tcp) (use irregex) (define xoid (let ((l '((dienste . A53ef7bc7b867017a9b97f36ad7020240))) (c 'A0001)) (lambda x (if (pair? x) (let ((h (assoc (car x) l))) (if (pair? h) (set! c (cdr h) c))) (module iubserver (iubserver-verbose make-observable connect! disconnect! value value-set! iup-connected) (import scheme chicken iup-base srfi-1 (only extras format) (only data-structures identity)) ;; The first part is rather questionable if not outright stupid. (define-values (next-iubserver-handle new-iubserver-handle) (let ((n 0)) (values (lambda () n) (lambda (proc) (let ((r (proc n))) (set! n (add1 n)) r) (define *observers* '()) (define (*observer-add! k v) (set! *observers* (alist-cons k v *observers*))) (define (*observer-delete! k) (and-let* ((e (assoc k *observers*))) (set! *observers* (delete! e *observers*)) (cdr e))) (define-record iobserver receiver) (define (finalize-observer x) (and-let* ((f (*observer-delete! (iobserver-receiver x (f x))) (define (make-observer receiver . key+finalizer) (let ((x (make-iobserver receiver)) (key (if (pair? key+finalizer) (car key+finalizer) receiver)) (final (cond ((and-let* (((pair? key+finalizer)) (finalizer? (car key+finalizer)) ((pair? finalizer?))) finalizer?) = car) (else identity (*observer-add! key final) (set-finalizer! x finalize-observer) x)) (define-record iobservable name value converter receivers) (define-record-printer (iobservable x out) (format out iobservable ~a ~a (iobservable-name x) (iobservable-receivers x))) (define (make-observable name initial . proc) (make-iobservable name initial (and (pair? proc) (car proc)) '())) (define (connect! source receiver) (let ((receiver (if (iobserver? receiver) (iobserver-receiver receiver) receiver))) (iobservable-receivers-set! source (cons receiver (iobservable-receivers source))) (receiver receiver (iobservable-value source))) source) (define (disconnect! source receiver) (let ((receiver (if (iobserver? receiver) (iobserver-receiver receiver) receiver))) (iobservable-receivers-set! source (delete receiver (iobservable-receivers source source) (define (value record) (iobservable-value record)) (define iubserver-verbose #f) (define (value-set! record new) (let* ((old (iobservable-value record)) (new (if (iobservable-converter record) ((iobservable-converter record) old new) (if (equal? old new) old new (if (eq? old new) (begin (if iubserver-verbose (format (current-error-port) Warning: ignored update on ~a\n record)) #f) (let ((new (force new))) (iobservable-value-set! record new) (for-each (lambda (receiver) (receiver receiver new)) (iobservable-receivers record)) old (define (finalize-iobserver handle) (and-let* ((nm (handle-name handle)) (f (*observer-delete! nm))) (f handle))) (define (cons-iobserver-receiver nm receiver) (lambda (self v) (let ((handle (handle-ref nm))) (receiver self handle v) (refresh handle (define (cons-iobserver-finalizer nm source receiver) (lambda (x) (disconnect! source receiver) (destroy! x))) (define (iup-connected source receiver constructor . args) (let ((nm (new-iubserver-handle (lambda (x) (format ~a#42.iobserver x (handle (apply constructor args))) (handle-name-set! handle nm) (connect! source (cons-iobserver-receiver nm receiver)) (*observer-add! nm (cons-iobserver-finalizer nm source receiver)) (set-finalizer! handle finalize-iobserver) handle)) ) (import iubserver) (begin ;; Set timer to 25Hz for smoot updates. Beware: I have not yet ;; found a way do unblock iup by i/o. Don't run time critical code ;; in the same pthread as iup. Since iup is currently fixed to the ;; chicken thread, this means time critical code should go into it's ;; own executable. (attribute-set! thread-watchdog 'run #f) (attribute-set! thread-watchdog 'time 50) (attribute-set!
Re: [Chicken-users] callbacks returning twice
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matt Welland mattrwell...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using IUP for quite a while and I don't recall seeing the message callback returned twice. That particular error comes from runtime.c in the Chicken core - and the procedure that raises it is not directly called either from iup or Jörg's code ... so no obvious indication of what is triggering it. -- Matt Gushee ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] callbacks returning twice
Hi, Jörg-- I don't know if I have any answers, but having struggled with a few IUP issues, I thought I'd take a look. However, I tried to compile your code and ... Warning: reference to possibly unbound identifier `gridbox' Yes, indeed it is unbound. There is no reference to 'gridbox' in the IUP egg (v1.6.0) source code. What version of the egg are you using - or did you add gridbox support yourself? -- Matt Gushee ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] callbacks returning twice
Hi Jörg, I've been using IUP for quite a while and I don't recall seeing the message callback returned twice. Perhaps it is something with the newer version of IUP you appear to be using. I would be interested to know if it works with chicken-iup? My virtualbox install seems to have broken in some recent upgrade and I have no access to Windows to try it myself. I can't run your code on Linux as my install of iup is probably too old: csc iuprep.scm Warning: reference to possibly unbound identifier `gridbox' Error: module unresolved: ask-repl Error: shell command terminated with non-zero exit status 256: '/mfs/pkgs/chicken/4.9.0.1_for_14.04/bin/chicken' 'iuprep.scm' -output-file 'iuprep.c' I was curious to see what I could learn from your code but unfortunately it is appears beyond my current skill level and is mostly incomprehensible to me. I'll keep trying :) Matt -=- BTW: chicken-iup is at www.kiatoa.com/fossils/chicken-iup On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote: Hi all, for a couple of days I've been looking into iup for chicken. This is close to the best thing since sliced bread in a way. Except that it crashes all the time. callback returned twice So what's the recipe to hit that problem? (The code is fairly trivial; I'm just exploring. Actually I was about to ask what I'm doing there in the first module is so basic textbook stuff, which egg do I actually want to use instead of mimicking it here? - It registers some callbacks around data to propagate updates to the gui elements.) Thanks for any suggestions. /Jörg (I attach my code here for reference. Just in case. It really does not too much; the second and third tab are only useful in connection with a server, just the first one usable out of the box. Not much different to csi, just with a gui.) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] read-u8vector: types.db inconsistent with documentation
Hi, Thanks Andy, this warning is indeed incorrect. A patch has been posted to fix it. Thanks! :-) -- andy...@ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ http://www.gonumber.com/andyjpb 0x7EBA75FF ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
