Chicken performance (was Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Set! question - long example)

[Kon Lovett]

On May 8, 2007, at 5:34 AM, felix winkelmann wrote:

> On 5/8/07, William Ramsay <address@hidden> wrote:
> > PS.   How does adding a SRFI to your code affect performance?
>
> You mean, as in "(require-extension srfi-1)"? It's compiled code as
> well, so it should be acceptable. If you need maximum performance,
> it may be worthwhile to include the source in your program and declare
> them hidden, to allow more inlining and constant folding, but only
> do that if you are really desperate.

Compiling unsafe also helps. I tend to do the following:

- For private but shared procedures the file is compiled unsafe (-O3)  
& inlined, with very unlikely global variable names.

- For public procedures with arguments that are explicitly checked I  
add (no-procedure-checks) & (no-bound-checks) declarations to the  
file, often with inlining.

- Otherwise the (no-procedure-checks-for-usual-bindings) declaration  
at a minimum.

Note that all of the above is conditional during development.

Also checkout the 'crunch' egg for a statically typed Scheme subset.

Best Wishes,
Kon

> cheers,
> felix
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Best Wishes,
Kon