4 ms·
Bolla says that alioth blew it, by not asking SBCL for full optimization --- and he does in fact get different timing with the optimization in place. From the
by rst 16y ago
Bolla says that alioth blew it, by not asking SBCL for full optimization --- and he does in fact get different timing with the optimization in place.
From the original post:
N=500
gcc 0.15u 0.00s 0.17r
sbcl 0.08u 0.02s 0.21r
N=3000
gcc 5.60u 0.00s 5.69r
sbcl 5.18u 0.01s 5.41r
N=5500
gcc 18.81u 0.01s 19.12r
sbcl 17.42u 0.02s 17.76r
I mentioned the alioth page mainly so people could see how gcc was being run.
- igouy 16y ago>>Bolla says that alioth blew it, by not asking SBCL for full optimization<< No he doesn't. The spectral-norm Lisp SBCL #2 program is Lorenzo Bolla's program - look at the program source code http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=spectralnorm&lang=sbcl&id=2 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=spect... >>he does in fact get different timing with the optimization in place<< He get's different timing but the only explanation he provides is "So, different numbers on different boxes, which is not at all unexpected."
- igouy 16y ago>>Bolla says that alioth blew it, by not asking SBCL for full optimization<< Maybe you should ask Lorenzo Bolla if he was trying to create misunderstanding by posting one of his old (December 5th, 2010) blog entries to HN ;-) The benchmarks game website has been showing Lorenzo Bolla's spectral-norm Lisp SBCL #2 since December 8th 2010.