[gambit-list] Help With Memory
Alex Shinn
alexshinn at gmail.com
Fri Sep 26 11:45:35 EDT 2008
[I trimmed off the chicken-users list because I'm not
interested in a pissing match between implementations :)]
Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> You are comparing Chicken to Chicken using different modes
> right?
Nope, Chicken to Gambit.
> When Chicken and Gambit are benchmarked in "r6rs-fixflo-unsafe" mode
> (which combines declarations for standard-bindings, fixnum specific
> operations and unsafe execution (no type checks)) the results I get
> are:
>
> ctak: Chicken is 1.03 times faster than Gambit
> fibc: Gambit is 1.01 times faster than Chicken
I'm using Chicken 3.4.0 with the -Ob optimization level, and
Gambit 4.1.0 with
(declare (standard-bindings)
(extended-bindings)
(block)
(not safe)
(fixnum))
on an x86 Mac OS X machine. Running each benchmark 5 times
(as separate processes), discarding the high and low and
averaging the middle 3 times I get:
ctak fibc
Chicken 0.023 0.011
Gambit 0.033 0.024
hence the 1.4x and 2x claims.
--
Alex
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list