<Explanation by Marc about padding in call frames deleted.>
Ah, so this is the cost that all calls incur in Gambit so that one can implement call/cc?
I thought of this when perusing
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-...
(apologies to those who understand the original Italian). The guy says that he wrote the C code
include <stdio.h>
int fib (int n) { if (n == 0 || n == 1) { return n; } else { return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); } }
int main() { int n; for (n = 0; n < 40; n++) { printf ("fib(%d)=%d\n", n, fib(n)); } return 0; }
and the scheme code
declare (standard-bindings) (extended-bindings) (block) (not safe))
(define (fib n) (if (or (fx= n 0) (fx= n 1)) n (fx+ (fib (fx- n 1)) (fib (fx- n 2)))))
(do ((n 0 (fx+ n 1))) ((fx= n 40)) (for-each display (list "fib(" n ")=" (fib n) #\newline)))
and on his box Chicken ran the Scheme code (at -O5 compilation level) faster than the C code with
gcc -O3 -W -Wall -o fib_c fib_c.c
On my box, I don't have chicken installed, but
heine:~> time ./fib_c 1.490u 0.000s 0:01.49 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
and after compilation
heine:~> time gsi fib_scm 4.860u 0.010s 0:04.87 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
So, it looks like Chicken really smokes Gambit on this femtobenchmark. The question is, should it?
(I suppose you'll come back with benchmarks using your native x86-32 back end at this point, but I need to run 64-bit Gambit ...)
Brad