[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request for Clarification on Rationale

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 86 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 86 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

I feel this comparison is somewhat skewed.  The typical
situation where I use multiple values is:

- multiple values are generated for every iteration,
  so mm vs vv test is more close, and
- the expression body of generating multiple values are
  known, so I'd rather use srfi-8's RECEIVE.

And this is the result on Gauche 0.8.6 / P4 2GHz (I use 100times
more iterations as William Clinger did.)

gosh> (time (for-each (lambda (x) ((mm x) list)) (make-list 10000000 1)))
; real  19.542
; user  19.480
; sys    0.060

gosh> (time (for-each (lambda (x) (call-with-values (lambda () (vv x)) list)) (make-list 10000000 1)))
; real  26.579
; user  26.460
; sys    0.110

gosh> (time (for-each (lambda (x) (receive z (vv x) (list z))) (make-list 10000000 1)))
; real  11.805
; user  11.750
; sys    0.040

The point is that the 'call-with-values' version creates
a closure for every iteration, as well as mu version, while
'receive' version can optimize it away.  The same optimization
is done with srfi-11 let-values as well.
(If the optimizer is sufficienty smart, 'call-with-values'
version can also be compiled without creating closures,
given that the binding of 'call-with-values' itself is
not altered elsewhere.)

The difference of mu vs call-with-values did catch my
attention.  There should be some room for improvement.