[gambit-list] [racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp

Marc Feeley feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
Wed Nov 7 15:54:25 EST 2012


Le 2012-11-07 à 2:13 PM, Bradley Lucier <lucier at math.purdue.edu> a écrit :

> I removed the Racket users list from this CC.
> 
> Viewable html files containing the results can be found at
> 
> http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/bench-gambit-2012-11-06/
> 
> Brad

Thank you Brad and Matthew for running the benchmarks.  There are some discrepancies between your results (on 64 bits) which are worrisome.  The discrepancies may be due to a difference in compiler options or declarations that one of you is using that the other is not using.  For example, these are the numbers you reported (R/G is the execution time ratio between Racket and Gambit):

   benchmark        Brad says         Matthew says

   dynamic          R/G =  1.33       R/G =  0.48   (that's almost a factor of 3 difference!)

   ctak             R/G = 63.67       R/G = 30.44

   puzzle           R/G =  2.60       R/G =  1.32

   paraffins        R/G =  1.89       R/G =  1.38

   peval            R/G =  1.49       R/G =  1.13

Given that Brad has a better knowledge of Gambit, and Matthew has a better knowledge of Racket, it wouldn't be surprizing that they used Gambit and Racket differently.

I wonder if these discrepancies are due to

  - different assumptions (perhaps Brad used declarations which assume that global variables will not be mutated if they are not set!, which Matthew is not using)

  - different hardware (perhaps memory access is relatively faster on one of these machines)

  - different heap sizes

  - different C compilers

It would be interesting to know where these differences come from, so that we know for future benchmarking experiments.

Marc




More information about the Gambit-list mailing list