Lisp performance (Ken Dickey)
Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:16:53 PST

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Current work in compiler/language design. hackeron@Athena.MIT.EDU (Harris L. Gilliam - MIT Project Athena) (1991-11-10)
Re: Current work in compiler/language design. (1991-11-20)
Lisp performance (1991-11-22)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: (Ken Dickey)
Keywords: OOP, design
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 91-11-030 91-11-081
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 91 14:16:53 PST (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>It appears most (or a lot) of Lisp is now compiled, and according to one
>respondent, when stripped bare runs twice as slow as standard code.

I have seen various lists of benchmarks of C vs XXX. Sometimes C
wins, sometimes XXX wins. It depends on what you are doing. Here are
a few numbers for Scheme & C (from the Gabrial suite). Note that
these are old benchmarks and compilers are constantly improving--other
benchmark disclaimers apply. These just happened to be published (see
below) and handy.

[Gambit in absolute seconds, others relative]

Motorola m68000
benchmark Gambit Orbit Liar cc
--------- ------ ----- ---- --
tak 0.14 x1.30 x3.15 x1.71
takl 1.18 x1.53 x1.86 x1.80
triangle 67.83 x0.89 x1.96 x0.83

MIPS R2000
benchmark Gambit Orbit Liar cc scc
--------- ------ ----- ---- -- ---
tak 0.06 x1.17 x2.83 x1.176 x2.00
takl 0.28 x1.14 x2.75 x1.79 x2.36
triangle 15.41 x1.02 x2.60 x0.85 x1.77

[The above were abstracted from:
M. Feeley and J. S. Miller, "A Parallel Virtual Machine for Efficient
Scheme Compilation", Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Lisp
and Functional Programming, Nice, France, June 1990.]

-Ken Dickey

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.