Re: [pure-lang-users] llvm 2.3 - good news

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Jiri Spitz wrote:
> Thanks, but I am still not happy. The memory consumption is OK now, but 
> my 1 M set example runs two times slower than before :-( .

Right, the new code is faster for JIT compilation, but slower on 
execution for small list values. I worked around that now by adding a 
minimum bound for the size of lists/tuples to which the new list 
generation code is applied. Please check whether it's ok for you now.

Using #set(1..1000000) as a test example, over here r462 still seems to 
be a tad slower than r436, but that's probably due to some other, 
unrelated fixes I did to the environment-handling code, which also incur 
some (small) runtime cost; I'll have another look at that tomorrow.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag