On Jun 14, 3:34 pm, Raymond Toy toy.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad
code. I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the
compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them
from the stack for each
Quoting the following post :-
I am looking for expert opinions
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/54fb97d15b234d31#
Probably doesn't meet your intent, but this is a really impressive bit
of (whacky) art:
Lisp runs faster than C. Once you get more time away
Sorry, I dont have access to the journal papers ... or I would do
research myself.
On Jun 14, 10:10 am, bolega gnuist...@gmail.com wrote:
Quoting the following post :-
I am looking for expert opinions
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/54...
Probably
On 6/14/10 10:17 AM, bolega wrote:
Sorry, I dont have access to the journal papers ... or I would do
research myself.
This has what to do with Python?
--
Stephen Hansen
... Also: Ixokai
... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/
signature.asc
On Jun 14, 10:17 am, bolega gnuist...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I dont have access to the journal papers ... or I would do
research myself.
On Jun 14, 10:10 am, bolega gnuist...@gmail.com wrote:
Quoting the following post :-
I am looking for expert opinions
For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal
machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So
can many Lisp compilers if you give the right type data. So it's a
moot point.
The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of
the spec at
One point that might be interesting, you do include C++ in your post.
Therefore some compare/contrast of C++ class member function
invocation rate versus Lisp object method invocation rate might be
meaningful. I'm sure if you Google back through comp.lang.lisp you
will find plenty on it already.
On 6/14/10 1:53 PM, fortunatus wrote:
For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal
machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So
Is that why I had to use assembly code instead of C for some parts of my
previous projects?
There was even one example
fortunatus wrote:
The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of
the spec at least - doesn't have standard way to specify type data
unless I am mistaken. Therefore you will find that Scheme compilers
add their own syntax for it. Again we are led to a moot point.
One
On 2010-06-15, Aaron W. Hsu arcf...@sacrideo.us wrote:
I've heard it said, it is easy to beat C compilers for fast code, it's
just hard to beat them at benchmarks written for C. That is, do the same
type of things as what Scheme gives you, such as lots of dynamic
allocation and resizing,
10 matches
Mail list logo
