Re: Ravi performance update

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:

> Following points are worth bearing in mind when looking at above
> benchmarks.
> 
> 1. For Ravi the timings above do not include the LLVM compilation time.
>   But LuaJIT timings include the JIT compilation times, so they show
>   incredible performance.
> 
> 2. The Ravi benchmarks are based on code that uses optional static types.

Thanks for the continued updates on Ravi, I have been following your
progress with interest, especially in relation to LLVM as I would eventually
like to provide a JIT compiler for my Lua variant, Lunia, some day.

In regards to the benchmarks, would it not be prudent to show the full time
for Ravi, including compilation, in order to better compare the performance
to LuaJIT? Otherwise, you've just provided some numbers without any actual
relation to each other as we have no idea how long compilation is taking.

Perhaps, if possible, show the full compilation and execution time for Ravi
and LuaJIT, and then just the execution times for both? This would be an
interesting benchmark I think as it would show the overhead for compilation
for both languages!

~Paige