lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

Available at:

performance.txt is particularily interesting, and I would warmly welcome a few field tests from you, both on FPU-having and FPU-less platforms (I might move the sheet to be an actual spreadsheet in the future).

Current results (double+int32 mode only):

OS X PowerPC:	
	4.13 user   0.01 sys    (-1.0%)
	5.49 user   0.03 sys    (-15.9%)

OS X Intel:
	2.82 user   0.01 sys    (+5.5%)
	4.52 user   0.02 sys    (+2.9%)

Windows XP (Pentium M):
	3.374	(+3.3%)
	4.656	(-10.9%)

Ubuntu Linux 7.10 (Pentium M):
	2.48 user   0.00 sys    (-0.8%)
	5.61 user   0.00 sys    (-2.3%)

ARM Linux no FPU (NSLU2):
	3.56 user   0.10 sys    (-38.8%)
	12.79 user   0.19 sys    (-85.2%)

The first lines are fibonacci calculations, which are not very integer oriented (really, it's the recursive variant). The second lines are essentially running 'etc/life.lua' without output (_very_ integer oriented).

NSLU2 loops less than others, so don't compare its absolute speed.

Comparisons are to an unpatched Lua 5.1.3. Minus is better; reducing speeds by 40-85% should be rather straggering, really.
More real world results (on any machines) are requested.


Bogdan Marinescu kirjoitti 12.3.2008 kello 9:38:

Excellent news! Thaks, your work is highly appreciated (and I don't mean just by me :) ).

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Asko Kauppi <> wrote:

Good timing. :)

I am just finishing a revise of the patch for Lua 5.1.3, and I'm glad
to announce that the patch is smaller and performs faster, as ever

I will send it out today, or tomorrow, once the last remaining tests
are performed.

What has changed on the inside is that floating point results are no
longer tested for integer values (which was taking time). Instead,
integer realm and floating point realm live happily together, and both
are seen as type "number" on the outside. This is the right way to go,
since calculations are often either integer-only or floating point
based (with less integer accuracy).

Anyways, thanks for asking.


Bogdan Marinescu kirjoitti 11.3.2008 kello 13:41:

> Hi,
> I was wondering if anyone has a functional LNUM patch for LUA 5.1.3.
> I tried to apply the 5.1.2 patch, but it fails in some places, and
> I"m not familiar with the code.