Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Wed, 12 May 1993 17:26:13 +0100 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA14510; Wed, 12 May 93 09:12:06 -0700 Sender: info-hol-request@ted.cs.uidaho.edu Errors-To: info-hol-request@ted.cs.uidaho.edu Precedence: bulk Received: from ganymede.inmos.co.uk by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA14496; Wed, 12 May 93 09:09:16 -0700 Received: from frogland.inmos.co.uk by ganymede.inmos.co.uk; Wed, 12 May 93 17:06:16 BST From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <485.9305121606@frogland.inmos.co.uk> Subject: Re: HOL Performance - FYI To: John.Van-Tassel@cl.cam.ac.uk Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:06:13 +0100 (BST) Cc: info-hol@ted.cs.uidaho.edu (info-hol mailing list) In-Reply-To: <9305121454.AA23276@albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk> from "John.Van-Tassel@cl.cam.ac.uk" at May 12, 93 03:54:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1941 John.Van-Tassel@cl.cam.ac.uk has said: > Allegro (w/ dumplisp) 149.0 10.0 159.0 > Allegro (w/ config) 146.6 8.3 154.9 > AKCL (w/ dumplisp + GC mods*) 51.9 9.2 61.1 This is in line with figures I received when I was getting info on benchmarks of hol88 vs hol90 ... from the evidence of the benchmark it seems that Allegro v4 is a disaster. Hol88 v2 with Allegro v4.0 on a SparcStation 2 is 10% slower than Hol88 v1.12 with Allegro v3.? on a SparcStation 1+. This seems inline with your figure. When I found out this I was really glad I hadn't tried to persuade INMOS to renew its maintenance with Franz to get v4.0 :-) Here is the table - I've normalised the results around the hol88 setup I was using before I moved to hol90. Machine HOL LISP/ML Run GC Run% R+GC% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun 10/30 hol90.5 SMLofNJ .93 20.88 0.72 879 911 Mips R-3000 hol90.4 SMLofNJ .92 23.87 4.02 769 706 HP 9000/730 hol88 v2.01(*1) AKCL 1.615+mods 47.4 51.2 387 200 Sun 4/75 hol88 v2.01 Lucid v4.1 61.0 -(*2) 300 323 Sun 4/65 hol90.4 SMLofNJ .92 63.55 1.77 289 301 DEC 5000/200 hol88 v2.00 Lucid 64.5 -(*2) 284 328 Sun 10/? hol88 v2.01 AKCL 1.615+mods 69.2 15.6 265 232 Sun 4/75 hol88 v2.01 AKCL 1.615+mods 86.2 21.8 213 182 Sun 4/65 hol88 v1.12 Allegro CL v3 183.5 13.3 100 100 Sun 4/75 hol88 v2.00 Allegro CL v4.0 201.5 30.2 91 85 Sun 3/160 hol88 v2.01 Franz 337.4 208.0 54 36 (*1) unwind library uncompiled (*2) GC time not reported -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq "They didn't like the rates, they don't like the poll tax, and they won't like the council tax." - Nicholas Ridley