Gambit-list Janvier 2019

gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca

6 participants
9 discussions

Gambit versus Python+GMP: Timing for Chudnovskys' algorithm for pi
by Bradley Lucier 07 Avr '22

07 Avr '22

Bakul Shah wrote a particularly elegant Scheme program for Chudnovskys' algorithm for pi based on the Common Lisp program here: https://bitbucket.org/tarballs_are_good/numericl/src/5fe8fe7089f48ab1c8a388… Nick Craig-Wood wrote a Python program using the GMP multiprecision library that appears to use exactly the same algorithm here: http://www.craig-wood.com/nick/articles/pi-chudnovsky/ I modified both programs a bit and include them here. They time the calculation of $10^n$ digits of pi for $n=1,2,3,4,5,6,7$. The results are heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> !py python pi_chudnovsky_bs_gmpy.py 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10, 'time', 1.0967254638671875e-05) ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 100, 'time', 3.0040740966796875e-05) Last 5 digits 70679 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 1000, 'time', 0.00025582313537597656) Last 5 digits 01989 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10000, 'time', 0.00386810302734375) Last 5 digits 75678 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 100000, 'time', 0.0834801197052002) Last 5 digits 24646 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 1000000, 'time', 1.655979871749878) Last 5 digits 58151 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10000000, 'time', 30.67442488670349) Last 5 digits 55897 OK heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gsi chud1.scm Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10, CPU time: 0.. Last 5 digits 26535. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 100, CPU time: 0.. Last 5 digits 70679. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 1000, CPU time: .004. Last 5 digits 1989. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10000, CPU time: .028. Last 5 digits 75678. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 100000, CPU time: .472. Last 5 digits 24646. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 1000000, CPU time: 6.448. Last 5 digits 58151. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10000000, CPU time: 98.612. Last 5 digits 55897. So it appears that for this algorithm applied to large integers, GMP's bignum routines are about 3-4 times as fast as Gambit's bignum routines. Not so bad. For smaller bignums, GMP has a bigger advantage. The C program gmp-chudnovsky.c includes certain optimizations to this basic algorithm: http://gmplib.org/pi-with-gmp.html ftp://ftp.gmplib.org/pub/misc/gmp-chudnovsky.c On my machine, compiled with gcc -O3 -march=native -o gmp-chudnovsky gmp-chudnovsky.c -lgmp -lm the CPU times for 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 digits are 1.064 and 18.200 seconds, respectively. This is with a somewhat older machine model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz running Ubuntu 13.04 with heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.7/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,go,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.7 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.7 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib --enable-objc-gc --with-cloog --enable-cloog-backend=ppl --disable-cloog-version-check --disable-ppl-version-check --enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.7.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gsi -v v4.6.9 20130607151908 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu "./configure '--enable-single-host' '--enable-multiple-versions' '--enable-shared'" and the Ubuntu-provided GMP 5.0.5. (I'm sure the GMP folks have a better way to build GMP on my machine than the "generic" 64-bit version provided by Ubuntu.) Brad

7 18

Gerbil v0.15 is out
by Dimitris Vyzovitis 25 Jan '19

25 Jan '19

Hi all, I am happy to announce the release of Gerbil v0.15, to go with Gambit v4.9.2. The highlight of this release is full support for R7RS Red edition and many new libraries, improvements and bug fixes. In addition: - For MacOS users: Gerbil is in homebrew now! - We have launched the gerbil package directory. - The Gerbil Treadmill is a new emacs mode by edw. As usual, for sources and downloads: https://github.com/vyzo/gerbil https://github.com/vyzo/gerbil/releases Full release changelog: https://github.com/vyzo/gerbil/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md For questions and support, come say hi on #gerbil-scheme in irc.freenode.net . Happy Hacking! -- vyzo

1 0

Re: [gambit-list] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're voting
by John Cowan 19 Jan '19

19 Jan '19

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ivan Raikov <ivan.g.raikov(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on > SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices? > SRFIs don't always codify existing practice, including the SRFIs drawn on in past, present, and future R7RS-large ballots. The original intention of the Steering Committee, I think, had nothing to do with SRFIs; I simply decided when writing the charter (which the committee approved) to leverage both existing and to-be-written SRFIs in order to be able to create R7RS-large piecemeal, which has always seemed to me the only practical approach. That said, SRFIs often do refer to existing implementations, or implementations of languages other than Scheme. > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM Per Bothner <per(a)bothner.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/16/19 6:27 AM, John Cowan wrote: > > > So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than > less, as with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a > sensible direction with the large language. > > > > For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach. > > We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems > > to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives > > that work synergistic well together. People were unhappy with R6RS > > because of its size and that so much of it was invention rather than > > codifying existing practice. R7RS-large is the same - but much more so. > > -- > > --Per Bothner > > per(a)bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "scheme-reports-wg2" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to scheme-reports-wg2+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >

1 0

[ANN] Gambit v4.9.2 released
by gambit＠arcade04.iro.umontreal.ca 18 Jan '19

18 Jan '19

1 0

Re: [gambit-list] Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're voting
by John Cowan 17 Jan '19

17 Jan '19

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM Per Bothner <per(a)bothner.com> wrote: For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach. > We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems > to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives > that work synergistic well together. I don't believe that that idea ever applied to the Scheme library, otherwise the list primitives would have been pair?, car, cdr, cons, null?, set-car!, and set-cdr!, and possibly not even the last two. Allow me to quote the first paragraph of Olin Shivers's rationale for SRFI 1, itself a "very large API" of 149 procedures, especially when compared to the 7 minimal procedures above and the 50 R6RS procedures, yet SRFI 1 is very popular and 24 of the 32 Schemes for which I have SRFI data implement it. The set of basic list and pair operations provided by R4RS/R5RS Scheme is > far from satisfactory. Because this set is so small and basic, most > implementations provide additional utilities, such as a list-filtering > function, or a "left fold" operator, and so forth. But, of course, this > introduces incompatibilities -- different Scheme implementations provide > different sets of procedures. The SRFI 43 rationale (by Taylor Campbell) begins similarly: R5RS provides very few list-processing procedures, for which reason SRFI 1 > (list-lib) exists. However, R5RS provides even fewer vector operations — > while it provides mapping, appending, et cetera operations for lists, it > specifies only nine vector manipulation operations —: [list omitted] . > Many Scheme implementations provide several vector operations beyond the > miniscule set that R5RS defines (the typical vector-append, vector-map, et > cetera), but often these procedures have different names, take arguments in > different orders, don't take the same number of arguments, or have some > other flaw that makes them unportable. For this reason, this SRFI is > proposed. Finally, here's Olin again in SRFI 33, bitwise operations: If you believe in "small is beautiful," then what is your motivation for including anything beyond BITWISE-NAND? Quant. suff. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and all other acyclic graphs; you have a right to be here. --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath

1 0

Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're voting
by John Cowan 16 Jan '19

16 Jan '19

Well, there are two weeks to go on the Tangerine Edition ballot (cutoff is 12 noon UTC on Saturday, February 2). So far, 18 people have voted, including me. For the Red Edition we had 30 voters, so I hope some of you who haven't voted yet will take an interest and give us your views. Remember that you don't have to vote on all issues: choosing "No vote" is equivalent to abstaining, which does not affect the outcome, as votes are decided by a majority of the votes cast. As in the Red Edition, the choice of string library (issue #1) has been the most controversial. There was no majority vote cast in the Red Edition, so the issue is being reballoted. Currently, the index-based SRFI 152, which is meant to be a simple basic string library, holds a majority position, but only by a single vote. There is a strong minority for the original SRFI 13, which is a superset (with a few deviations) of 152. SRFI 130, which is cursor-based, has only a single vote. Three write-in votes were cast for SRFI 140, which I excluded from Tangerine because it provides adjustable-length strings. These, like all other features that can't be implemented (at least minimally) on top of R7RS-small, have been postponed to the Green Edition. I voted for SRFI 152. Issue #4, supplementing the Red Edition's SRFI 127 generators with their dual, accumulators, is substantially beating the alternatives of status quo and no library. Issue #6 is about bitwise operations on integers, and the comprehensive SRFI 151 is dominating the R6RS alternative. The same thing is happening with fixnums (issue #7) and flonums (issue #8), where SRFIs 143 and 144, both supersets of R6RS, are getting more support than the R6RS alternatives. SRFI 160 is a superset of SRFI 4 that provides homogeneous vectors (issue #10), and it too is winning, though by a lesser margin. Surprising to me is that for the combinator-based formatting library (issue #11), the combinator-based SRFI 159 is in a majority position over SRFI 48, the traditional template-based (as in Common Lisp) alternative. Essentially all the remaining issues are yes/no/abstain, and yes is dominant all down the line, though a little less so for ratios (issue #13) and exact complex numbers (issue #16). I voted with the majority for all of these except exact complex numbers. So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less, as with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible direction with the large language. -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers. --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes"

1 1

Change to SRFI under ballot: u1vectors removed from SRFI 160
by John Cowan 13 Jan '19

13 Jan '19

I have sent a request to the SRFI Editor to remove all references to u1vectors (bitvectors) from SRFI 160, which is a part of the Tangerine Edition ballot. This is being done not because they are not useful, but because they are different enough in both specification and implementation from the other homogeneous vectors to deserve to be put into a future SRFI of their own, which will be balloted in a later edition. If anyone wishes to change their vote as a result of this change (I hope not), simply go to http://tinyurl.com/tangerine-ballot and submit a second form. You can set all other questions to "No vote" and I will merge your two ballots. In all cases except "No vote", the later ballot will take precedence.

1 0

Second Call for Papers: PACMPL issue ICFP 2019
by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt 09 Jan '19

09 Jan '19

PACMPL Volume 3, Issue ICFP 2019 Call for Papers accepted papers to be invited for presentation at The 24th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming Berlin, Germany http://icfp19.sigplan.org/ ### Important dates Submissions due: 1 March 2019 (Friday) Anywhere on Earth https://icfp19.hotcrp.com Author response: 16 April (Tuesday) - 18 Apri (Friday) 14:00 UTC Notification: 3 May (Friday) Final copy due: 22 June (Saturday) Conference: 18 August (Sunday) - 23 August (Friday) ### About PACMPL Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL <https://pacmpl.acm.org/>) is a Gold Open Access journal publishing research on all aspects of programming languages, from design to implementation and from mathematical formalisms to empirical studies. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a particular subject area within programming languages and will be announced through publicized Calls for Papers, like this one. ### Scope [PACMPL](https://pacmpl.acm.org/) issue ICFP 2019 seeks original papers on the art and science of functional programming. Submissions are invited on all topics from principles to practice, from foundations to features, and from abstraction to application. The scope includes all languages that encourage functional programming, including both purely applicative and imperative languages, as well as languages with objects, concurrency, or parallelism. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): * *Language Design*: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution; modules; components and composition; metaprogramming; type systems; interoperability; domain-specific languages; and relations to imperative, object-oriented, or logic programming. * *Implementation*: abstract machines; virtual machines; interpretation; compilation; compile-time and run-time optimization; garbage collection and memory management; multi-threading; exploiting parallel hardware; interfaces to foreign functions, services, components, or low-level machine resources. * *Software-Development Techniques*: algorithms and data structures; design patterns; specification; verification; validation; proof assistants; debugging; testing; tracing; profiling. * *Foundations*: formal semantics; lambda calculus; rewriting; type theory; monads; continuations; control; state; effects; program verification; dependent types. * *Analysis and Transformation*: control-flow; data-flow; abstract interpretation; partial evaluation; program calculation. * *Applications*: symbolic computing; formal-methods tools; artificial intelligence; systems programming; distributed-systems and web programming; hardware design; databases; XML processing; scientific and numerical computing; graphical user interfaces; multimedia and 3D graphics programming; scripting; system administration; security. * *Education*: teaching introductory programming; parallel programming; mathematical proof; algebra. Submissions will be evaluated according to their relevance, correctness, significance, originality, and clarity. Each submission should explain its contributions in both general and technical terms, clearly identifying what has been accomplished, explaining why it is significant, and comparing it with previous work. The technical content should be accessible to a broad audience. PACMPL issue ICFP 2019 also welcomes submissions in two separate categories — Functional Pearls and Experience Reports — that must be marked as such at the time of submission and that need not report original research results. Detailed guidelines on both categories are given at the end of this call. Please contact the principal editor if you have questions or are concerned about the appropriateness of a topic. ### Preparation of submissions **Deadline**: The deadline for submissions is **Friday, March 1, 2019**, Anywhere on Earth (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anywhere_on_Earth>). This deadline will be strictly enforced. **Formatting**: Submissions must be in PDF format, printable in black and white on US Letter sized paper, and interpretable by common PDF tools. All submissions must adhere to the "ACM Small" template that is available (in both LaTeX and Word formats) from <https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/submissions>. For authors using LaTeX, a lighter-weight package, including only the essential files, is available from <http://sigplan.org/Resources/Author/#acmart-format>. There is a limit of **25 pages for a full paper or Functional Pearl** and **12 pages for an Experience Report**; in either case, the bibliography will not be counted against these limits. Submissions that exceed the page limits or, for other reasons, do not meet the requirements for formatting, will be summarily rejected. Supplementary material can and should be **separately** submitted (see below). See also PACMPL's Information and Guidelines for Authors at <https://pacmpl.acm.org/authors.cfm>. **Submission**: Submissions will be accepted at <https://icfp19.hotcrp.com/> Improved versions of a paper may be submitted at any point before the submission deadline using the same web interface. **Author Response Period**: Authors will have a 72-hour period, starting at 14:00 UTC on **Tuesday, April 16, 2019**, to read reviews and respond to them. **Supplementary Material**: Authors have the option to attach supplementary material to a submission, on the understanding that reviewers may choose not to look at it. This supplementary material should **not** be submitted as part of the main document; instead, it should be uploaded as a **separate** PDF document or tarball. Supplementary material should be uploaded **at submission time**, not by providing a URL in the paper that points to an external repository. Authors are free to upload both anonymized and non-anonymized supplementary material. Anonymized supplementary material will be visible to reviewers immediately; non-anonymized supplementary material will be revealed to reviewers only after they have submitted their review of the paper and learned the identity of the author(s). **Authorship Policies**: All submissions are expected to comply with the ACM Policies for Authorship that are detailed at <https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/information-for-authors>. **Republication Policies**: Each submission must adhere to SIGPLAN's republication policy, as explained on the web at <http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Policies/Republication>. **Resubmitted Papers**: Authors who submit a revised version of a paper that has previously been rejected by another conference have the option to attach an annotated copy of the reviews of their previous submission(s), explaining how they have addressed these previous reviews in the present submission. If a reviewer identifies him/herself as a reviewer of this previous submission and wishes to see how his/her comments have been addressed, the principal editor will communicate to this reviewer the annotated copy of his/her previous review. Otherwise, no reviewer will read the annotated copies of the previous reviews. ### Review Process This section outlines the two-stage process with lightweight double-blind reviewing that will be used to select papers for PACMPL issue ICFP 2019. We anticipate that there will be a need to clarify and expand on this process, and we will maintain a list of frequently asked questions and answers on the conference website to address common concerns. **PACMPL issue ICFP 2019 will employ a two-stage review process.** The first stage in the review process will assess submitted papers using the criteria stated above and will allow for feedback and input on initial reviews through the author response period mentioned previously. At the review meeting, a set of papers will be conditionally accepted and all other papers will be rejected. Authors will be notified of these decisions on **May 3, 2019**. Authors of conditionally accepted papers will be provided with committee reviews (just as in previous conferences) along with a set of mandatory revisions. After four weeks (May 31, 2019), the authors will provide a second submission. The second and final reviewing phase assesses whether the mandatory revisions have been adequately addressed by the authors and thereby determines the final accept/reject status of the paper. The intent and expectation is that the mandatory revisions can be addressed within four weeks and hence that conditionally accepted papers will in general be accepted in the second phase. The second submission should clearly identify how the mandatory revisions were addressed. To that end, the second submission must be accompanied by a cover letter mapping each mandatory revision request to specific parts of the paper. The cover letter will facilitate a quick second review, allowing for confirmation of final acceptance within two weeks. Conversely, the absence of a cover letter will be grounds for the paper’s rejection. **PACMPL issue ICFP 2019 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process.** To facilitate this, submitted papers must adhere to two rules: 1. **author names and institutions must be omitted**, and 2. **references to authors' own related work should be in the third person** (e.g., not "We build on our previous work ..." but rather "We build on the work of ..."). The purpose of this process is to help the reviewers come to an initial judgement about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult (e.g., important background references should not be omitted or anonymized). In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For instance, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web or give talks on their research ideas. ### Information for Authors of Accepted Papers * As a condition of acceptance, final versions of all papers must adhere to the new ACM Small format. The page limit for the final versions of papers will be increased by two pages to help authors respond to reviewer comments and mandatory revisions: **27 pages plus bibliography for a regular paper or Functional Pearl, 14 pages plus bibliography for an Experience Report**. * Authors of accepted submissions will be required to agree to one of the three ACM licensing options: open access on payment of a fee (**recommended**, and SIGPLAN can cover the cost as described next); copyright transfer to ACM; or retaining copyright but granting ACM exclusive publication rights. Further information about ACM author rights is available from <http://authors.acm.org>. * PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal. It will be archived in ACM’s Digital Library, but no membership or fee is required for access. Gold Open Access has been made possible by generous funding through ACM SIGPLAN, which will cover all open access costs in the event authors cannot. Authors who can cover the costs may do so by paying an Article Processing Charge (APC). PACMPL, SIGPLAN, and ACM Headquarters are committed to exploring routes to making Gold Open Access publication both affordable and sustainable. * ACM offers authors a range of copyright options, one of which is Creative Commons CC-BY publication; this is the option recommended by the PACMPL editorial board. A reasoned argument in favour of this option can be found in the article [Why CC-BY?](https://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/) published by OASPA, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. * We intend that the papers will be freely available for download from the ACM Digital Library in perpetuity via the OpenTOC mechanism. * ACM Author-Izer is a unique service that enables ACM authors to generate and post links on either their home page or institutional repository for visitors to download the definitive version of their articles from the ACM Digital Library at no charge. Downloads through Author-Izer links are captured in official ACM statistics, improving the accuracy of usage and impact measurements. Consistently linking to the definitive version of an ACM article should reduce user confusion over article versioning. After an article has been published and assigned to the appropriate ACM Author Profile pages, authors should visit <http://www.acm.org/publications/acm-author-izer-service> to learn how to create links for free downloads from the ACM DL. * At least one author of each accepted submissions will be expected to attend and present their paper at the conference. The schedule for presentations will be determined and shared with authors after the full program has been selected. Presentations will be videotaped and released online if the presenter consents. * The official publication date is the date the papers are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to *two weeks prior* to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work. ### Artifact Evaluation Authors of papers that are conditionally accepted in the first phase of the review process will be encouraged (but not required) to submit supporting materials for Artifact Evaluation. These items will then be reviewed by an Artifact Evaluation Committee, separate from the paper Review Committee, whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the associated paper. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves. Authors of accepted papers will be encouraged to make the supporting materials publicly available upon publication of the papers, for example, by including them as "source materials" in the ACM Digital Library. An additional seal will mark papers whose artifacts are made available, as outlined in the ACM guidelines for artifact badging. Participation in Artifact Evaluation is voluntary and will not influence the final decision regarding paper acceptance. ### Special categories of papers In addition to research papers, PACMPL issue ICFP solicits two kinds of papers that do not require original research contributions: Functional Pearls, which are full papers, and Experience Reports, which are limited to half the length of a full paper. Authors submitting such papers should consider the following guidelines. #### Functional Pearls A Functional Pearl is an elegant essay about something related to functional programming. Examples include, but are not limited to: * a new and thought-provoking way of looking at an old idea * an instructive example of program calculation or proof * a nifty presentation of an old or new data structure * an interesting application of functional programming techniques * a novel use or exposition of functional programming in the classroom While pearls often demonstrate an idea through the development of a short program, there is no requirement or expectation that they do so. Thus, they encompass the notions of theoretical and educational pearls. Functional Pearls are valued as highly and judged as rigorously as ordinary papers, but using somewhat different criteria. In particular, a pearl is not required to report original research, but, it should be concise, instructive, and entertaining. A pearl is likely to be rejected if its readers get bored, if the material gets too complicated, if too much specialized knowledge is needed, or if the writing is inelegant. The key to writing a good pearl is polishing. A submission that is intended to be treated as a pearl must be marked as such on the submission web page, and should contain the words "Functional Pearl" somewhere in its title or subtitle. These steps will alert reviewers to use the appropriate evaluation criteria. Pearls will be combined with ordinary papers, however, for the purpose of computing the conference's acceptance rate. #### Experience Reports The purpose of an Experience Report is to help create a body of published, refereed, citable evidence that functional programming really works — or to describe what obstacles prevent it from working. Possible topics for an Experience Report include, but are not limited to: * insights gained from real-world projects using functional programming * comparison of functional programming with conventional programming in the context of an industrial project or a university curriculum * project-management, business, or legal issues encountered when using functional programming in a real-world project * curricular issues encountered when using functional programming in education * real-world constraints that created special challenges for an implementation of a functional language or for functional programming in general An Experience Report is distinguished from a normal PACMPL issue ICFP paper by its title, by its length, and by the criteria used to evaluate it. * Both in the papers and in any citations, the title of each accepted Experience Report must end with the words "(Experience Report)" in parentheses. The acceptance rate for Experience Reports will be computed and reported separately from the rate for ordinary papers. * Experience Report submissions can be at most 12 pages long, excluding bibliography. * Each accepted Experience Report will be presented at the conference, but depending on the number of Experience Reports and regular papers accepted, authors of Experience reports may be asked to give shorter talks. * Because the purpose of Experience Reports is to enable our community to accumulate a body of evidence about the efficacy of functional programming, an acceptable Experience Report need not add to the body of knowledge of the functional-programming community by presenting novel results or conclusions. It is sufficient if the Report states a clear thesis and provides supporting evidence. The thesis must be relevant to ICFP, but it need not be novel. The review committee will accept or reject Experience Reports based on whether they judge the evidence to be convincing. Anecdotal evidence will be acceptable provided it is well argued and the author explains what efforts were made to gather as much evidence as possible. Typically, more convincing evidence is obtained from papers which show how functional programming was used than from papers which only say that functional programming was used. The most convincing evidence often includes comparisons of situations before and after the introduction or discontinuation of functional programming. Evidence drawn from a single person's experience may be sufficient, but more weight will be given to evidence drawn from the experience of groups of people. An Experience Report should be short and to the point: it should make a claim about how well functional programming worked on a particular project and why, and produce evidence to substantiate this claim. If functional programming worked in this case in the same ways it has worked for others, the paper need only summarize the results — the main part of the paper should discuss how well it worked and in what context. Most readers will not want to know all the details of the project and its implementation, but the paper should characterize the project and its context well enough so that readers can judge to what degree this experience is relevant to their own projects. The paper should take care to highlight any unusual aspects of the project. Specifics about the project are more valuable than generalities about functional programming; for example, it is more valuable to say that the team delivered its software a month ahead of schedule than it is to say that functional programming made the team more productive. If the paper not only describes experience but also presents new technical results, or if the experience refutes cherished beliefs of the functional-programming community, it may be better to submit it as a full paper, which will be judged by the usual criteria of novelty, originality, and relevance. The principal editor will be happy to advise on any concerns about which category to submit to. ### ICFP Organizers General Chair: Derek Dreyer (MPI-SWS, Germany) Artifact Evaluation Co-Chairs: Simon Marlow (Facebook, UK) Industrial Relations Chair: Alan Jeffrey (Mozilla Research, USA) Programming Contest Organiser: Ilya Sergey (Yale-NUS College, Singapore) Publicity and Web Chair: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (Indiana University, USA) Student Research Competition Chair: William J. Bowman (University of British Columbia, Canada) Workshops Co-Chair: Christophe Scholliers (Universiteit Gent, Belgium) Jennifer Hackett (University of Nottingham, UK) Conference Manager: Annabel Satin (P.C.K.) ### PACMPL Volume 3, Issue ICFP 2019 Principal Editor: François Pottier (Inria, France) Review Committee: Lennart Beringer (Princeton University, United States) Joachim Breitner (DFINITY Foundation, Germany) Laura M. Castro (University of A Coruña, Spain) Ezgi Çiçek (Facebook London, United Kingdom) Pierre-Evariste Dagand (LIP6/CNRS, France) Christos Dimoulas (Northwestern University, United States) Jacques-Henri Jourdan (CNRS, LRI, Université Paris-Sud, France) Andrew Kennedy (Facebook London, United Kingdom) Daan Leijen (Microsoft Research, United States) Kazutaka Matsuda (Tohoku University, Japan) Bruno C. d. S. Oliveira (University of Hong Kong, China) Klaus Ostermann (University of Tübingen, Germany) Jennifer Paykin (Galois, United States) Frank Pfenning (Carnegie Mellon University, USA) Mike Rainey (Indiana University, USA) Chung-chieh Shan (Indiana University, USA) Sam Staton (University of Oxford, UK) Pierre-Yves Strub (Ecole Polytechnique, France) German Vidal (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Spain) External Review Committee: Michael D. Adams (University of Utah, USA) Robert Atkey (University of Strathclyde, IK) Sheng Chen (University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA) James Cheney (University of Edinburgh, UK) Adam Chlipala (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA) Evelyne Contejean (LRI, Université Paris-Sud, France) Germán Andrés Delbianco (IRIF, Université Paris Diderot, France) Dominique Devriese (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium) Richard A. Eisenberg (Bryn Mawr College, USA) Conal Elliott (Target, USA) Sebastian Erdweg (Delft University of Technology, Netherlands) Michael Greenberg (Pomona College, USA) Adrien Guatto (IRIF, Université Paris Diderot, France) Jennifer Hackett (University of Nottingham, UK) Troels Henriksen (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) Chung-Kil Hur (Seoul National University, Republic of Korea) Roberto Ierusalimschy (PUC-Rio, Brazil) Ranjit Jhala (University of California, San Diego, USA) Ralf Jung (MPI-SWS, Germany) Ohad Kammar (University of Oxford, UK) Oleg Kiselyov (Tohoku University, Japan) Hsiang-Shang ‘Josh’ Ko (National Institute of Informatics, Japan) Ondřej Lhoták (University of Waterloo, Canada) Dan Licata (Wesleyan University, USA) Geoffrey Mainland (Drexel University, USA) Simon Marlow (Facebook, UK) Akimasa Morihata (University of Tokyo, Japan) Shin-Cheng Mu (Academia Sinica, Taiwan) Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni (Inria, France) Kim Nguyễn (University of Paris-Sud, France) Ulf Norell (Gothenburg University, Sweden) Atsushi Ohori (Tohoku University, Japan) Rex Page (University of Oklahoma, USA) Zoe Paraskevopoulou (Princeton University, USA) Nadia Polikarpova (University of California, San Diego, USA) Jonathan Protzenko (Microsoft Research, USA) Tiark Rompf (Purdue University, USA) Andreas Rossberg (Dfinity, Germany) KC Sivaramakrishnan (University of Cambridge, UI) Nicholas Smallbone (Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden) Matthieu Sozeau (Inria, France) Sandro Stucki (Chalmers | University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Don Syme (Microsoft, UK) Zachary Tatlock (University of Washington, USA) Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (Indiana University, USA) Takeshi Tsukada (University of Tokyo, Japan) Tarmo Uustalu (Reykjavik University, Iceland) Benoit Valiron (LRI, CentraleSupelec, Univ. Paris Saclay, France) Daniel Winograd-Cort (University of Pennsylvania, USA) Nicolas Wu (University of Bristol, UK)

1 0

Best way to build gambit on Windows with debug information
by luca regini 01 Jan '19

01 Jan '19

Hi All, I am trying unsuccessfully to build Gambit on Windows with debug information. I am using MSYS2 with mingw-64 as the build environment. The version of gcc that comes with this distribution is: gcc version 7.3.0 (GCC) and the thread model is posix I have configured the build with the following options: ./configure --enable-single-host --enable-debug --enable-debug-log --enable-debug-c-backtrace --enable-debug-ctrl-flow-history --enable-debug-host-changes --enable-debug-alloc-mem --enable-debug-garbage-collect --enable-rtlib-debug-location --enable-rtlib-debug-source --enable-rtlib-debug-environments --enable-track-scheme --enable-thread-system=win32 --enable-multiple-threaded-vms --enable-smp and have done a full boostrap. the make bootstrap and make bootclean steps work fine but the make takes forever. It has been running for more than 1 hour and 25 minutes now on the first file ( _io.scm ) and there is no visible sign of progression. I have intentionally run it only with one thread since running multiple build threads ( make -jn) was always saturating my cpu to 100%. I am building on a laptop running Windows 10 with 2 cores and 16 GB of RAM. What are some clearly reproducible steps to build on Windows with debug info? There are several possible choices even about what MSYS ( Mingw32/64, MSYS1, MSYS2, Visual Studio can build without a bootstrap or not?) distribution one can use and this are not very well documented on the website.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Gambit-list Janvier 2019