Hallo,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Bradley Lucier lucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
GCs are often very short, on the order of milliseconds, for example on a 2.0GHz G5:
[descartes:~/Desktop] lucier% gsi Gambit v4.2.8
> (##gc-report-set! #t) > (define a (time (expt 3 10000000))) *** GC: 1 ms, 692K alloc, 386K heap, 82.0K live (21% 65712+18208) *** GC: 1 ms, 992K alloc, 386K heap, 88.0K live (23% 71920+18208) *** GC: 1 ms, 1.19M alloc, 1.27M heap, 94.8K live (7% 55584+41536) *** GC: 2 ms, 2.08M alloc, 2.22M heap, 163K live (7% 55456+111184) *** GC: 2 ms, 3.22M alloc, 4.05M heap, 253K live (6% 55392+204064) *** GC: 2 ms, 5.48M alloc, 6.86M heap, 435K live (6% 55328+389808) *** GC: 4 ms, 9.98M alloc, 14.2M heap, 797K live (5% 55264+761280) *** GC: 7 ms, 19.0M alloc, 27.2M heap, 1.49M live (5% 55200+1504224) *** GC: 12 ms, 36.9M alloc, 54.0M heap, 2.90M live (5% 55136+2990128) (time (expt 3 10000000)) 1165 ms real time 1096 ms cpu time (936 user, 160 system) 9 collections accounting for 33 ms real time (9 user, 23 system) 71837896 bytes allocated no minor faults no major faults
I know this is an oooold thread, but I just compiled Gambit-C with Clang and wanted something to compare with. The time I got is roughly 1/3 of this:
(time (expt 3 10000000)) 480 ms real time 478 ms cpu time (418 user, 60 system) 15 collections accounting for 13 ms real time (6 user, 7 system) 71857592 bytes allocated 13810 minor faults no major faults
This is a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo running Snow Leopard, so some of the improvement must be due to the CPU difference.
Cheers,