I agree that the shootout benchmarks are often so small as to be
pointless, and also that the design of the benchmarking system is
definitely not tuned to lisp/scheme style. Nevertheless, I do think it
would be a useful optimization to have some sort of immediate
double-float representation, at least for purely local functions.
(Maybe I'm just coming from a scheme background and thinking of loops
this way, but it seems to me that there are plenty of times when I
would love to have a functional approach -- i.e. composition -- where
intermediate doubles are not boxed yet the functions are not suitable
However, I can understand wanting more than my desire before making a
significant change to sbcl internals :).
On 23 Feb 2005, at 4:24 AM, Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> "Will M. Farr" <farr@...> writes:
>> Just for fun, I was trying to speed up the SBCL implementations of
>> some of
>> the short benchmarks on the Computer Language Shootout page
>> (http://shootout.alioth.debian.org ). The takfp benchmark, in
>> is one where the SBCL implementation seems needlessly slow.
> Hmm. This shootout is getting worse and worse. Why does this guy
> such completely useless test functions? Why not computing integer
> factorial(1000)? (Answer: because C and C++ cannot do this easily.)
> would at least have a little sense behind it...
> P.S.1: Don't understand me wrong: having float values returned in
> would be nice, of course, but the TAKFP function does not at all
> me of the necessity for this feature. And number crunching
> avoid such functions anyway and operate destructively on arrays of
> P.S.2: I have commented on this shootout some time ago in cll, see
> It may be worthwile to read this message (and also the whole thread).