Re: GUILE 2.2 progress

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 25. Jan. 2020 um 13:48 Uhr schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden>:
>
> With https://codereview.appspot.com/551390047/
> it looks like I can run LilyPond against GUILE 2.2 mostly:
>
>
> $ time lilypond input/regression/mozart-hrn-3.ly
> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
> Import (ice-9 threads) to have access to `call-with-new-thread'.
> Import (ice-9 threads) to have access to `current-thread'.
> Processing `input/regression/mozart-hrn-3.ly'
> Parsing...
> input/regression/mozart-hrn-3.ly:31:9: error: not a markup
>
>         #(string-append  "It has been typeset and placed in the public "
> Interpreting 
> music...[8][16][24][32][40][48][56][64][72][80][88][96][104][112][120]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Interpreting music...
> Interpreting music...
> Interpreting music...[8][16][24][32][40][48]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Interpreting music...
> Interpreting 
> music...[8][16][24][32][40][48][56][64][72][80][88][96][104][112][120][128][136][144]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> MIDI output to `mozart-hrn-3.midi'...
> MIDI output to `mozart-hrn-3-1.midi'...
> MIDI output to `mozart-hrn-3-2.midi'...
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 3 or 4 pages...
> Drawing systems...
> Layout output to `/tmp/lilypond-A2ssuI'...
> Converting to `mozart-hrn-3.pdf'...
> Deleting `/tmp/lilypond-A2ssuI'...
> fatal error: failed files: "input/regression/mozart-hrn-3.ly"
>
> real 0m7.239s
> user 0m8.637s
> sys 0m0.121s
>
> (this disables the GS step, as something is munging a string , causing
> GS to barf.)
>
> 7.2 seconds end-to-end includes 1.7s of GC, and 2.0s of reading/compiling SCM.
>
> On guile 1.8, with GS disabled, the end to end runtime is
>
> 3.568s including 0.33s for GC and 0.32s for reading the SCM.

Compiling the same file with my slow loptop and
released 2.19.83

real 0m13,777s
user 0m12,731s
sys 0m0,855s

with my own guile-3 setup (none of your recent patches applied):
real 0m22,384s
user 0m24,366s
sys 0m0,693s

Without the error with string-append

>
> These timings are internally consistent: if we can do byte-compilation
> on the .scm files (which would make the SCM reading instantaneous),
> and get the GC overhead down, we'd be at the same performance level of
> GUILE 1.8.
>
> What do folks think is more important? Reducing GC overhead is a win
> on large scores, while byte-compilation will make compile/edit/debug
> cycles faster.

Having a slow laptop, I'm always in favor of speed, though I didn't
understand what benefit you expect by "reducing GC overhead".
Could you explain?

>
> Even if we wouldn't recoup all the overhead of GC, I think the reduced
> complexity of using BGC for GC might be worth it.
>
> I think it is clear that we should not be targeting GUILE 2.0, but GUILE 2.2.

I dropped any work for guile-2.0 long ago.
For me it's more the question whether we should entirely skip guile-2,
going for guile-3 directly.

> --
> Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
>

Best,
  Harm