[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