Current file: examples/benching.xg: Sat Apr 13 14:57:56 2002
A collection of timing benchmarks. Can take quite a while to complete, and doesn't generate
overly nice output! Performance measured in bogoflops, <err> I mean seconds :)
Current xgraph info:
 xgraph examples/benching.xg -detach
 XGraph build gcc[Apr 13 2002 14:39:40], version 200204013
 Executed d.d. Sat Apr 13 15:04:31 2002
 Input files: 'examples/benching.xg' 
 Working directory: /home/bertin/work/src/xgraph
 Last opened on display :0.0/-1/-1 (visual 0x24, 16 planes TrueColor) by bertin


1000000 times empty loop took 0.46404500000000004079(real)/0.4500000000000000111(user) seconds
1000000 times empty loop took 0.46395900000000001029(real)/0.44000000000000000222(user) seconds
Calibrating adapted loop size (should be 0.5s)... 1077681 times empty loop took 0.49924900000000005384(real)/0.47999999999999998224(user) seconds

timing of addition of 2 arrays, either with a for-toMAX[] loop construct (scalar addition), or
with (internal) array addition. The latter is done 10x to increase the reliability of the measured
duration. Procedures are used to ensure that the code is executed from compiled representations
(*EVAL* would not automatically compile the array-addition test procedure [test2]).
On a PIII 450Mhz (linux), test1 completes in around 5.8s, test2 under 1s (meaning that the array
addition is some 60x faster than the looped scalar addition).

Addition of 2 [1077681] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, without support for simple array arithmetic: 6.2629239999999999355(real)/6.2400000000000002132(user)s
Addition of 2 [1077681] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, with support for simple array arithmetic: 6.3503480000000003258(real)/6.3300000000000000711(user)s
10x array[1077681] addition without support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.02045699999999999949(real)/0(user)s
10x array[1077681] addition with support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 1.0066349999999999465(real)/0.97999999999999998224(user)s

Comparing the special 2-D indexing function 2Dindex to nDindex

1077681 times 2Dindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.6699289999999997747(real)/2.6499999999999999112(user)s
1077681 times nDindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.838467999999999769(real)/2.8199999999999998401(user)s

Some loops to time the effect of $UseConstantsLists (and the '?' last-value operator):

1077681 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.6577299999999999258(real)/3.6400000000000001243(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.245794000000000068(real)/2.2200000000000001954(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.4657420000000001004(real)/3.4500000000000001776(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.0074190000000000644(real)/1.9799999999999999822(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 3.1088249999999999496(real)/3.0899999999999998579(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 1.8739770000000000039(real)/1.8500000000000000888(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'var'=0 took 0.7943050000000000388(real)/0.77000000000000001776(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'var'=0 took 0.79377300000000006186(real)/0.77000000000000001776(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'var[$loop]'=1077680 took 1.957314999999999916(real)/1.9399999999999999467(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'var[$loop]'=1077680 took 1.7173270000000000479(real)/1.6999999999999999556(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1077680 took 3.1180249999999998245(real)/3.1000000000000000888(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1077680 took 1.8785220000000000251(real)/1.8600000000000000977(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077681 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1077680 took 4.3082640000000003155(real)/4.2900000000000000355(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077681 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1077680 took 3.0485090000000001353(real)/3.0299999999999998046(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
expression-loops per second:
	1077681/2.3718061304347828333=454371.45396130968584 (real time)
	1077681/2.3513043478260873265=458333.26553254429018 (user time)
Current file: examples/benching.xg: Sat Apr 13 14:57:56 2002
A collection of timing benchmarks. Can take quite a while to complete, and doesn't generate
overly nice output! Performance measured in bogoflops, <err> I mean seconds :)
Current xgraph info:
 xgraph examples/benching.xg -detach
 XGraph build gcc[Apr 13 2002 14:39:40], version 200204013
 Executed d.d. Sat Apr 13 15:05:34 2002
 Input files: 'examples/benching.xg' 
 Working directory: /home/bertin/work/src/xgraph
 Last opened on display :0.0/-1/-1 (visual 0x24, 16 planes TrueColor) by bertin


1000000 times empty loop took 0.46383600000000002606(real)/0.44000000000000000222(user) seconds
1000000 times empty loop took 0.46418199999999998351(real)/0.4500000000000000111(user) seconds
Calibrating adapted loop size (should be 0.5s)... 1077163 times empty loop took 0.50002600000000008151(real)/0.47999999999999998224(user) seconds

timing of addition of 2 arrays, either with a for-toMAX[] loop construct (scalar addition), or
with (internal) array addition. The latter is done 10x to increase the reliability of the measured
duration. Procedures are used to ensure that the code is executed from compiled representations
(*EVAL* would not automatically compile the array-addition test procedure [test2]).
On a PIII 450Mhz (linux), test1 completes in around 5.8s, test2 under 1s (meaning that the array
addition is some 60x faster than the looped scalar addition).

Addition of 2 [1077163] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, without support for simple array arithmetic: 6.2670479999999999521(real)/6.25(user)s
Addition of 2 [1077163] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, with support for simple array arithmetic: 6.3388070000000000803(real)/6.3200000000000002842(user)s
10x array[1077163] addition without support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.020358000000000001095(real)/0(user)s
10x array[1077163] addition with support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.97576899999999999746(real)/0.94999999999999995559(user)s

Comparing the special 2-D indexing function 2Dindex to nDindex

1077163 times 2Dindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.6690439999999999721(real)/2.6499999999999999112(user)s
1077163 times nDindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.8378399999999999181(real)/2.8100000000000000533(user)s

Some loops to time the effect of $UseConstantsLists (and the '?' last-value operator):

1077163 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.65779299999999985(real)/3.6299999999999998934(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.2371089999999997922(real)/2.2200000000000001954(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.4625500000000002387(real)/3.4399999999999999467(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.0060959999999998793(real)/1.9899999999999999911(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 3.1074380000000001445(real)/3.0899999999999998579(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 1.8750150000000000983(real)/1.8600000000000000977(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'var'=0 took 0.79359599999999996811(real)/0.77000000000000001776(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'var'=0 took 0.7941449999999999898(real)/0.78000000000000002665(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'var[$loop]'=1077162 took 1.9575800000000000978(real)/1.9299999999999999378(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'var[$loop]'=1077162 took 1.7156219999999999803(real)/1.6899999999999999467(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1077162 took 3.1169959999999998779(real)/3.1000000000000000888(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1077162 took 1.8693089999999998874(real)/1.8500000000000000888(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1077163 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1077162 took 4.2987869999999999138(real)/4.2800000000000002487(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1077163 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1077162 took 3.0477979999999997851(real)/3.0299999999999998046(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
expression-loops per second:
	1077163/2.3685540869565215871=454776.61073136090999 (real time)
	1077163/2.3482608695652174013=458706.70246250694618 (user time)
Current file: examples/benching.xg: Sat Apr 13 14:57:56 2002
A collection of timing benchmarks. Can take quite a while to complete, and doesn't generate
overly nice output! Performance measured in bogoflops, <err> I mean seconds :)
Current xgraph info:
 xgraph examples/benching.xg -detach
 XGraph build gcc[Apr 13 2002 14:39:40], version 200204013
 Executed d.d. Sat Apr 13 15:06:39 2002
 Input files: 'examples/benching.xg' 
 Working directory: /home/bertin/work/src/xgraph
 Last opened on display :0.0/-1/-1 (visual 0x24, 16 planes TrueColor) by bertin


1000000 times empty loop took 0.44581599999999999007(real)/0.4500000000000000111(user) seconds
1000000 times empty loop took 0.44532599999999999962(real)/0.44000000000000000222(user) seconds
Calibrating adapted loop size (should be 0.5s)... 1122772 times empty loop took 0.50019700000000000273(real)/0.5(user) seconds

timing of addition of 2 arrays, either with a for-toMAX[] loop construct (scalar addition), or
with (internal) array addition. The latter is done 10x to increase the reliability of the measured
duration. Procedures are used to ensure that the code is executed from compiled representations
(*EVAL* would not automatically compile the array-addition test procedure [test2]).
On a PIII 450Mhz (linux), test1 completes in around 5.8s, test2 under 1s (meaning that the array
addition is some 60x faster than the looped scalar addition).

Addition of 2 [1122772] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, without support for simple array arithmetic: 6.5165030000000001564(real)/6.5099999999999997868(user)s
Addition of 2 [1122772] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, with support for simple array arithmetic: 6.5782140000000000057(real)/6.5700000000000002842(user)s
10x array[1122772] addition without support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.00038099999999999999102(real)/0(user)s
10x array[1122772] addition with support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 1.0390360000000000706(real)/1.0400000000000000355(user)s

Comparing the special 2-D indexing function 2Dindex to nDindex

1122772 times 2Dindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.7610770000000002256(real)/2.7599999999999997868(user)s
1122772 times nDindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.9365269999999998873(real)/2.9399999999999999467(user)s

Some loops to time the effect of $UseConstantsLists (and the '?' last-value operator):

1122772 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.789617999999999931(real)/3.7900000000000000355(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.3069600000000001216(real)/2.3100000000000000533(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.5897079999999998989(real)/3.5899999999999998579(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.0706699999999997885(real)/2.0699999999999998401(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 3.2173500000000001542(real)/3.2099999999999999645(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 1.9339480000000000004(real)/1.9299999999999999378(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'var'=0 took 0.8058170000000000055(real)/0.81000000000000005329(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'var'=0 took 0.80563300000000004353(real)/0.81000000000000005329(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'var[$loop]'=1122771 took 2.0188850000000000406(real)/2.0200000000000000178(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'var[$loop]'=1122771 took 1.7666580000000000616(real)/1.7700000000000000178(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1122771 took 3.2280950000000001587(real)/3.2299999999999999822(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1122771 took 1.9322060000000000901(real)/1.9299999999999999378(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1122772 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1122771 took 4.4669080000000001007(real)/4.4699999999999997513(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1122772 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1122771 took 3.1544680000000000497(real)/3.1600000000000001421(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
expression-loops per second:
	1122772/2.4482609130434784817=458599.81426745129284 (real time)
	1122772/2.4482608695652174902=458599.82241164980223 (user time)
Current file: examples/benching.xg: Sat Apr 13 14:57:56 2002
A collection of timing benchmarks. Can take quite a while to complete, and doesn't generate
overly nice output! Performance measured in bogoflops, <err> I mean seconds :)
Current xgraph info:
 xgraph examples/benching.xg -detach
 XGraph build gcc[Apr 13 2002 17:26:20], version 200204013
 Executed d.d. Sat Apr 13 18:50:14 2002
 Input files: 'examples/benching.xg' 
 Working directory: /home/bertin/work/src/xgraph
 Last opened on display :0.0/-1/-1 (visual 0x24, 16 planes TrueColor) by bertin


1000000 times empty loop took 0.44576300000000002033(real)/0.4500000000000000111(user) seconds
1000000 times empty loop took 0.44511200000000000765(real)/0.44000000000000000222(user) seconds
Calibrating adapted loop size (should be 0.5s)... 1123312 times empty loop took 0.50006499999999998174(real)/0.5(user) seconds

timing of addition of 2 arrays, either with a for-toMAX[] loop construct (scalar addition), or
with (internal) array addition. The latter is done 10x to increase the reliability of the measured
duration. Procedures are used to ensure that the code is executed from compiled representations
(*EVAL* would not automatically compile the array-addition test procedure [test2]).
On a PIII 450Mhz (linux), test1 completes in around 5.8s, test2 under 1s (meaning that the array
addition is some 60x faster than the looped scalar addition).

Addition of 2 [1123312] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, without support for simple array arithmetic: 6.5003390000000003113(real)/6.5(user)s
Addition of 2 [1123312] arrays in a scalar-addition loop, with support for simple array arithmetic: 6.5652999999999996916(real)/6.5700000000000002842(user)s
10x array[1123312] addition without support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.00036400000000000001148(real)/0(user)s
10x array[1123312] addition with support for simple array arithmetic, array addition (add[&z,&x,&y]): 0.94888300000000003198(real)/0.94999999999999995559(user)s

Comparing the special 2-D indexing function 2Dindex to nDindex

1123312 times 2Dindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.7616779999999998552(real)/2.7599999999999997868(user)s
1123312 times nDindex[1,2,3,4]: 2.9384719999999999729(real)/2.9399999999999999467(user)s

Some loops to time the effect of $UseConstantsLists (and the '?' last-value operator):

1123312 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.7913269999999998916(real)/3.7999999999999998224(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.3072479999999999656(real)/2.2999999999999998224(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'progn[2,add[2,kk]]' took 3.5925829999999998599(real)/3.5899999999999998579(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'progn[2,?add,?ran]' took 2.071095999999999826(real)/2.0699999999999998401(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 3.2195230000000001347(real)/3.2200000000000001954(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'var[foo[?ran]]'=0.1766426425429159508 took 1.9256070000000000686(real)/1.9199999999999999289(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'var'=0 took 0.80604500000000001148(real)/0.81000000000000005329(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'var'=0 took 0.80648600000000003618(real)/0.81000000000000005329(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'var[$loop]'=1123311 took 2.0192309999999999981(real)/2.0200000000000000178(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'var[$loop]'=1123311 took 1.7678739999999999455(real)/1.7700000000000000178(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1123311 took 3.2298979999999999357(real)/3.2299999999999999822(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'var[foo[$loop]]'=1123311 took 1.937688000000000077(real)/1.9399999999999999467(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
1123312 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1123311 took 4.4692769999999999442(real)/4.4699999999999997513(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=0
1123312 times 'var[foo[bar[$loop]]]'=1123311 took 3.1588430000000000675(real)/3.1600000000000001421(user) seconds with $UseConstantsLists=1
expression-loops per second:
	1123312/2.4438566086956519108=459647.26244701404357 (real time)
	1123312/2.4443478260869571095=459554.89149768755306 (user time)
