lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

Hi Lorenzo,

Maybe for 32bit code you should compile with LUA_32BITS defined.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Lorenzo Donati
<> wrote:
> On 02/01/2015 14:36, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
>> Lua 5.3.0 (rc3) is now available for testing at
> [snip]
>> All feedback welcome. Thanks.
>> --lhf
> I find this release quite slow. I ran a bunch of test suites used to
> unit-test my internal "patchwork" library and it took about 3 minutes to
> complete, whereas with Lua 5.2 and 5.1 it took a couple of seconds
> (some of those are stress-tests for my non-optimized math modules, so they
> probably generate lots of garbage, but the difference from previous versions
> is scaring).
> Does the introduction of integers slow the interpreter so much (it is the
> only architectural change I know of that could possibly affect so much the
> tests)? Since I got some compilation warnings (see another subthread) I
> tried to recompile with different TDM-GCC versions, but to no avail: lua 5.3
> is a crawl compared to the previous versions.
> The warnings I got from the compilation are all related to I/O functions, so
> it doesn't seem to be the cause, unless the minimal I/O performed by the
> tests counts (a few logging messages and sort of progress bars with "+"
> signs).
> I also tried to execute the tests on my older WinXP-SP3 32bit machine,
> fearing some interaction between the Windows WOW subsystem[1] and the new
> lua executable, but the run was slow also on this machine.
> I also recompiled (with different versions of TDM-GCC) under the old WinXP
> machine, but with the same results.
> I begin to fear that the new 64bit integers could slow down 32 bit code (I
> haven't installed a 64bit compiler, since I still use 32 bit machines at
> work and I need 32 bit executables). Note that my tests and modules were
> written for Lua 5.1(mainly)/5.2, so they are not aware of the float/integer
> dualism, but I expected that the new release would not impact older code so
> much, performancewise.
> BTW, during the test-run ProcessExplorer (a task manager) showed that the
> core on which lua ran was fully busy (on both systems), so it seems that Lua
> was doing something heavy and not waiting for some lagging I/O.
> Can anyone confirm such behaviour? Did anyone do some performance testing on
> Windows with 5.3 compared with older versions?
> Thanks!
> -- Lorenzo
> [1] (Windows-On-Windows) the subsystem that allows 32 bit executables to run
> on a 64 bit machine with a 64bit Windows OS.