Re: Optimization settings



>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Toy <toy@rtp.ericsson.se> writes:

>>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov> writes:
    James> You make some very good points. I would love to see the results of some
    James> optimization experiments with Maxima. I think the optimization settings
    James> all go back to (at least) Schelter's time.

    James> Anyone willing to try some tests?

    Raymond> I might try a few simple tests with CMUCL and maybe Clisp.  I'd
    Raymond> probably just zap any (safety 0) from the source code.  The test would
    Raymond> probably be the maxima test suite since it prints out the elapsed
    Raymond> time.

Ok, I did the test using CMUCL (recent CVS version).  For some reason
Clisp 2.30 crashes when loading bessel.lisp.  Don't know why.  This is
all on a Solaris box.

Timing:
;   12.81f0 seconds of real time
;   9.39f0 seconds of user run time
;   2.62f0 seconds of system run time
;   [Run times include 0.61f0 seconds GC run time]
*** end of summary for tests-cmucl.log


Timing results with current maxima sources, removing the safety 0
declarations:

Timing:
;   12.8f0 seconds of real time
;   9.35f0 seconds of user run time
;   2.54f0 seconds of system run time
;   [Run times include 0.63f0 seconds GC run time]

These times seem fairly typical, with the rea and user times not
varying by much more than 0.1-0.2 sec.

A grep shows that safety = 0 is only used in a few places:  

o bessel.lisp, which I left in
o commac.lisp, which I commented out

Anyway, those are the results, FWIW.

Ray