Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0
Ludovic Courtès skribis: > ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ ./pre-inst-env guix environment --pure --ad-hoc > guile-next guile3.0-hashing -- guile ~/tmp/sha256.scm > > ;;; (hash "b33576331465a60b003573541bf3b1c205936a16c407bc69f8419a527bf5c988") > clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime > 65.17 89.75 0.45 0.00 0.00 35.63 The patch below gives us: --8<---cut here---start->8--- ludo@ribbon /tmp/hashing$ guile --r6rs -L .. ~/tmp/sha256.scm ;;; (hash "b33576331465a60b003573541bf3b1c205936a16c407bc69f8419a527bf5c988") clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime 59.31 80.65 0.39 0.00 0.00 30.73 --8<---cut here---end--->8--- It’s a disappointingly small improvement. The reason is that (hashing fixnums) adds another layer of opacity, where it ends up doing essentially: (define fx32xor fxxor) … Thus, no inlining, and no easy trick to solve that. :-/ Anyhow, I think the patch is probably a good idea. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’. diff --git a/module/rnrs/arithmetic/fixnums.scm b/module/rnrs/arithmetic/fixnums.scm index 4ec1cae0c..c30807eb5 100644 --- a/module/rnrs/arithmetic/fixnums.scm +++ b/module/rnrs/arithmetic/fixnums.scm @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ ;;; fixnums.scm --- The R6RS fixnums arithmetic library -;; Copyright (C) 2010, 2011, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +;; Copyright (C) 2010, 2011, 2013, 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ;; ;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public @@ -75,25 +75,26 @@ fxrotate-bit-field fxreverse-bit-field) (import (only (guile) ash - cons* - define-inlinable - inexact->exact - logand - logbit? - logcount - logior - lognot - logxor - most-positive-fixnum - most-negative-fixnum - object-address) + cons* + define-inlinable + inexact->exact + logand + logbit? + logcount + logior + lognot + logxor + most-positive-fixnum + most-negative-fixnum + object-address) (ice-9 optargs) (rnrs base (6)) (rnrs control (6)) (rnrs arithmetic bitwise (6)) (rnrs conditions (6)) (rnrs exceptions (6)) - (rnrs lists (6))) + (rnrs lists (6)) + (rnrs syntax-case (6))) (define fixnum-width (let ((w (do ((i 0 (+ 1 i)) @@ -121,70 +122,105 @@ (or (for-all inline-fixnum? args) (raise (make-assertion-violation (define-syntax define-fxop* +(lambda (s) + (syntax-case s () +((_ name op) + (with-syntax ((proc (datum->syntax + #'name + (string->symbol + (string-append "%" + (symbol->string + (syntax->datum #'name)) + "-proc") + #'(begin + ;; Define a procedure for when the inline case doesn't + ;; apply. + (define proc + (case-lambda + ((x y) +(assert-fixnum x y) +(op x y)) + (args +(assert-fixnums args) +(apply op args + + (define-syntax name + (lambda (s) + (syntax-case s () + ((_ args (... ...)) + #'(begin + (assert-fixnum args (... ...)) + (op args (... ... + (x + (identifier? #'x) + #'proc)) + + (define-syntax define-alias (syntax-rules () - ((_ name op) - (define name - (case-lambda - ((x y) - (assert-fixnum x y) - (op x y)) - (args - (assert-fixnums args) - (apply op args))) + ((_ new old) + (define-syntax new (identifier-syntax old) ;; All these predicates don't check their arguments for fixnum-ness, ;; as this doesn't seem to be strictly required by R6RS. - (define fx=? =) - (define fx>? >) - (define fx=? >=) - (define fx<=? <=) + (define-alias fx=? =) + (define-alias fx>? >) + (define-alias fx=? >=) + (define-alias fx<=? <=) - (define fxzero? zero?) - (define fxpositive? positive?) - (define fxnegative? negative?) - (define fxodd? odd?) - (define fxeven? even?) + (define-alias fxzero? zero?) + (define-alias fxpositive? positive?) + (define-alias fxnegative? negative?) + (define-alias fxodd? odd?) + (define-alias fxeven? even?) (define-fxop* fxmax max) (define-fxop* fxmin min) - (define (fx+ fx1 fx2) + (define-inlinable (fx+ fx1 fx2) (assert-fixnum fx1 fx2) (let ((r (+ fx1 fx2))) (or (inline-fixnum? r) (raise (make-implementation-restriction-violation))) r)) - (define (fx* fx1 fx2) + (define-inlinable (fx* fx1 fx2) (assert-fixnum
SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0
Hello Guilers! Göran Weinholt wrote a pure-Scheme (R6RS) implementation of common cryptographic hash functions: https://github.com/weinholt/hashing I thought this would make a useful benchmark (and probably favorable to JIT because it’s one hot loop), so here goes (computing the SHA256 hash of ‘guile-2.2.6.tar.xz’ with the code below, compiled with -O2, Guile 2.2.6 vs. 2.9.8): --8<---cut here---start->8--- ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ ./pre-inst-env guix environment --pure --ad-hoc guile guile-hashing -- guile ~/tmp/sha256.scm ;;; (hash "b33576331465a60b003573541bf3b1c205936a16c407bc69f8419a527bf5c988") clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime 135.07 164.13 0.52 0.00 0.00 42.14 ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ ./pre-inst-env guix environment --pure --ad-hoc guile-next guile3.0-hashing -- guile ~/tmp/sha256.scm ;;; (hash "b33576331465a60b003573541bf3b1c205936a16c407bc69f8419a527bf5c988") clock utime stime cutime cstime gctime 65.17 89.75 0.45 0.00 0.00 35.63 --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Guile 3 is twice as fast! No difference if we force ‘-O3’. Still far from the libgcrypt implementation in C + asm, but hey! --8<---cut here---start->8--- ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ time guix hash -f hex "/gnu/store/zfp7d4wr5hbl5lrnzs8c15bsc3ygq74g-guile-2.2.6.tar.xz" b33576331465a60b003573541bf3b1c205936a16c407bc69f8419a527bf5c988 real0m0.097s user0m0.093s sys 0m0.024s --8<---cut here---end--->8--- To be continued… Ludo’. (use-modules (hashing sha-2) (rnrs bytevectors) (ice-9 binary-ports) (ice-9 match) (ice-9 time)) (define (port-sha256 port) ;; Return the SHA256 of the data read from PORT. (define bv (make-bytevector 65536)) (define hash (make-sha-256)) (let loop () (match (get-bytevector-n! port bv 0 (bytevector-length bv)) ((? eof-object?) (sha-256-finish! hash) hash) (n (sha-256-update! hash bv 0 n) (loop) (define (file-sha256 file) ;; Return the SHA256 of FILE. (call-with-input-file file port-sha256)) (time (pk 'hash (sha-256->string (file-sha256 "/gnu/store/zfp7d4wr5hbl5lrnzs8c15bsc3ygq74g-guile-2.2.6.tar.xz"
Re-exporting a replaced binding
Hi again! I’m not sure if this is an intended consequence of cf08dbdc189f0005cab6f2ec7b23ed9d150ec43d, so I thought I’d share this example of a practical effect: --8<---cut here---start->8--- ludo@ribbon /tmp [env]$ cat x.scm (define-module (x) #:use-module (srfi srfi-1) #:re-export (delete)) ludo@ribbon /tmp [env]$ cat y.scm (define-module (y) #:use-module (x)) (pk 'delete delete) ludo@ribbon /tmp [env]$ guile -L . -c '(use-modules (y))' WARNING: (y): imported module (x) overrides core binding `delete' ;;; (delete #) ludo@ribbon /tmp [env]$ guile --version guile (GNU Guile) 2.9.8 --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Here ‘delete’ is replaced by srfi-1, but the replaced bit is not propagated to module (x), even though (x) simply re-exports it. Should the #:re-export clause propagate the replace bit, or should it not? :-) (In Guile < 3.x, #:re-export would propagate the replace bit since that bit was associated with the variable itself.) Ludo’.
Re: GNU Guile 2.9.8 Released [beta]
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 01:34:59PM +0800, Nala Ginrut wrote: > When I was trying to compile Artanis, the configure threw an error: > > checking for Guile version >= 3.0... configure: error: Guile 3.0 required, > but 2.9.8 found > > > Here's what I put in configure.ac: > GUILE_PKG(2.2 2.3 2.9 3.0) > > My question is "what's the correct config here"? Hm. I think I had that with nyacc too. This worked for me: GUILE_PKG([3.0]) GUILE_PROGS([2.9.5]) I think this is due to our currently apocalyptic [1] situation: tomas@trotzki:~/src/guile/nyacc$ guile GNU Guile 2.9.5 [...] Enter `,help' for help. scheme@(guile-user)> (version) $1 = "2.9.5" scheme@(guile-user)> (effective-version) $2 = "3.0" (replace 2.9.5 for 2.9.8 as appropriate). Cheers [1] Although apocalyptic has often a negative connotation, I'm using it here in its more original sense [2], i.e. full of gleeful expectation :-) [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocalyptic -- tomás signature.asc Description: Digital signature
