Re: [Chicken-users] performance of bignums

[Peter Bex]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:26:53PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:04:17PM -0300, Stephen Eilert wrote:
> > Not sure about the status of this particular GSOC, but SBCL could also be
> > "cheating".
> > 
> > http://www.sbcl.org/gsoc2013/ideas/#sec-1.2
> > 
> > Now, I thought GMP were GPL'd and SBCL not, so I'm unsure about the legal
> > implications, if it does bundle GMP now.
> 
> Thanks for posting that; I hadn't looked at the sbcl implementation
> of the pi-digits benchmark, but indeed that page says "Pi digits on
> the benchmarks game is currently a bunch of calls to GMP".  This would
> *really* be cheating in my opinion, as it's not testing the language
> implementation but using nonstandard extensions that replace stuff
> that's already part of the core.
> 
> I had just assumed it would be using the sbcl native implementation
> (which indeed is pretty damn good and almost 100% pure Lisp code).

In fact, there are two implementations, one of which uses native
operations.  It is still faster than CHICKEN and very close to Guile/GMP:

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=pidigits&lang=sbcl&id=2#log

It does use some type annotations, though.  Adding some to the
CHICKEN version makes it go a tiny bit faster, but not by much.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature