Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
On Sep 29 2011, Alan Post wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: Will you show me this data for the current implementation? The first implementation doesn't need to justify itself,

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread Alaric Snell-Pym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much time to do right. Personally I don't believe too much in benchmarks anyway. I believe in fast execution and source code

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
On Sep 29 2011, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much time to do right. Personally I don't believe too much in benchmarks anyway. I believe in fast execution and source code review.

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread Alaric Snell-Pym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/2011 01:44 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: On Sep 29 2011, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much time to do right. Personally I

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread John Cowan
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: If the supposed performance improvement can't be benchmarked, then it's pointless, as nobody will actually benefit from it. Any case where somebody can benefit from a performance improvement can be turned into a benchmark that consists of running the code that is

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-29 Thread Alaric Snell-Pym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/29/2011 04:51 PM, John Cowan wrote: Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: If the supposed performance improvement can't be benchmarked, then it's pointless, as nobody will actually benefit from it. Any case where somebody can benefit from a

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Alex Shinn
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: I don't have enough data to say that it matters in this case, but in principle it surely does. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. The problem here specifically is the lack

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Alan Post
Will you show me this data for the current implementation? -Alan On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:30:00AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: I don't have enough data to say that it matters in this case, but in principle it

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Alan Post
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: Will you show me this data for the current implementation? The first implementation doesn't need to justify itself, just be working. *nods* How

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Alex Shinn
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing regex code? I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated by portability concerns, simplifying the Chicken distribution, and

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Alan Post
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:33:41PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing regex code? I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated by

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-28 Thread Toby Thain
On 28/09/11 11:33 PM, Alex Shinn wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Postalanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote: How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing regex code? I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated by portability concerns,

[Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-27 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop. Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place. IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this way and should run better in case the C compiler is not smart enough.

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-27 Thread Peter Bex
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop. Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place. IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-27 Thread Jörg F . Wittenberger
On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop. Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place. IMHO the code is

Re: [Chicken-users] two minor tweaks to runtime.c

2011-09-27 Thread Alan Post
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:21:15PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.