> Dear felix,
>
> after coming back to this function and the associated issues regularly, I
> revised my opinion on integrating"fp+*" into (chicken flonum), given it uses
> the C99-fma function. On the one hand, this operation is so fundamental in
> numerical computations that it warrants a
Christian Himpe schrieb am 2021-11-07:
> felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com schrieb am 2021-11-07:
> > > Dear Felix,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the patch. I built the current git head with your patch.
> > > After importing chicken.flonum, I get the following error when calling
> > > fp*+:
> > >
> >
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com schrieb am 2021-11-07:
> > Dear Felix,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch. I built the current git head with your patch.
> > After importing chicken.flonum, I get the following error when calling fp*+:
> >
> I'm terribly sorry. I'm an ass, I didn't even test it in the
> Dear Felix,
>
> Thank you for the patch. I built the current git head with your patch.
> After importing chicken.flonum, I get the following error when calling fp*+:
>
I'm terribly sorry. I'm an ass, I didn't even test it in the interpreter. Please
find attached a revised patch.
felix
From
Dear Felix,
Thank you for the patch. I built the current git head with your patch.
After importing chicken.flonum, I get the following error when calling fp*+:
#;2> (fp*+ 1.0 2.0 3.0)
Error: unbound variable: g18021803
Call history:
(fp*+ 1.0 2.0 3.0)
Hi!
Here a patch against the current git HEAD, adding support for "fp*+". Please
give it a try, if you want.
This is experimental, if people consider this worthwhile, I can submit it for
adding to the core
system. Note that you still may need passing extra C-compiler options to enable
inlining
> a patch would be great, if it is not too much work. Attached you find three
> assembly language files:
>
> * fma-test_original.s (unchananged csc c to assembly)
> * fma-test_modified.s (modified csc c from previous mail)
> * fma-test_modified_mfma.s (modified csc c and -mfma gcc option)
>
>
> modified code:
>
> 7.378s CPU time, 0/225861 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
> 8.498s CPU time, 0/238095 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
>
> Both were compiled with -O3 optimization level in gcc.
>
> I am fine with these results given your layout of the internals
felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com schrieb am 2021-11-04:
> > 7.558s CPU time, 0/225861 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
> > 8.839s CPU time, 0/256410 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
> >
> >[...]
> >
> > It would be great to get some help or explanation with this issue.
> 7.558s CPU time, 0/225861 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
> 8.839s CPU time, 0/256410 GCs (major/minor), maximum live heap: 30.78 MiB
>
>[...]
>
> It would be great to get some help or explanation with this issue.
Hi!
I have similar timings and the difference in the number of
Hi Christian,
this might be a case of "never trust a statistics you did not falsify
yourself".
Not bothering to speculate about explanations, I tend to ask how stable
the results are wrt. larger N's, repetition etc.
IMHO the results are too close for a call. Roughly this looks like 91%
memory
Dear All,
I am currently experimenting with Chicken Scheme and I would like to ask about
the following situation: I am comparing a "pure" Scheme fused-multiply-add
(fma) using chicken.flonum against C99's fma via chicken.foreign. Here is my
test code:
fma-test.scm
(import (chicken
12 matches
Mail list logo
