Subject: Re: Making CLISP run faster

From: Raymond Toy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:35:33 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Amoroso <[email-masked]> writes:

    Paolo> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
    >> optimize parts, but are there any recommended tools for profiling
    >> which work well with CLISP? Hopefully tools that people actually
    >> use.. 

    Paolo> Mark Kantrowitz's METERING utility supports CLISP. I don't
    Paolo> know how popular is it.

I've used it with CLISP.  It worked pretty well for what I wanted.
Also, if you look at CMUCL's profiling code, it's very, very similar
to MK METERING utility.

Ray

---

From: Raymond Toy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:39:15 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Joswig <[email-masked]> writes:

    Rainer> At 9:37 Uhr -0700 19.09.1999, Eric Marsden wrote:
    >> >>>>> "dv" == Dobes Vandermeer <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> 
    dv> Allegro compiles to native code, but CLISP does not (AFAIK).
    dv> Thus Allegro will inevitably be X times faster than CLISP.
    dv> Dynamic compilers (like ACL) are not trivial to write in
    dv> comparison to a regular script interpreter (like CLISP) so you
    dv> are facing the old "Yu get what you paid for" problem.
    >> 
    >> hey, you can use CMUCL, which is not only free of charge but public
    >> domain, and it runs faster than ACL on most stuff.

    Rainer> Hmm, has anybody done meaningful benchmarking lately?

Between what?  CLISP and ACL?  CMUCL? 

I've done some benchmarking but not with CLISP lately because I'm
mostly interested in floating-point performance and CLISP is quite a
bit slower than CMUCL in this area.  However, if my floating-point
code generates lots of garbage, I find CLISP to be pretty competitive
with CMUCL.  Presumably because CLISP has a good GC, and CMUCL does
not (on Solaris).  This was a while ago.

Besides, what is "meaningful benchmarking"?  An oxymoron, right? :-)

Ray