From ab0c110db931360231647e512d3323e82c06c345 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marshall Lochbaum Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:13:40 -0400 Subject: 2021 AoC comparison shows BQN has very few icache misses on AoC-style code as well --- docs/implementation/kclaims.html | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'docs') diff --git a/docs/implementation/kclaims.html b/docs/implementation/kclaims.html index 837ac1c2..79731f87 100644 --- a/docs/implementation/kclaims.html +++ b/docs/implementation/kclaims.html @@ -106,4 +106,4 @@ 1.245378356 seconds time elapsed -

The stalls are less than 1% here, so maybe the smaller executable is paying off in some way. I can't be sure, because the programs being run are very different: 19.k is 10 lines while the others are hundreds of lines long. But I don't have a longer K program handy to test with (and you could always argue the result doesn't apply to Whitney's K anyway). Again, it doesn't matter much: the point is that the absolute most the other interpreters could gain from being more L1-friendly is about 10% on those fairly representative programs.

+

The stalls are less than 1% here, but it seems this is largely due to the different nature of the program: 19.k is 10 lines while the others are hundreds of lines long. Now that Advent of Code 2021 has run, dzaima points out that his solutions are comparable in intent to ngn's, and I measure very close to 0.5% icache stalls in both (27 of 5,404 million cycles in BQN and 34 of 6,600 in ngn/k, problems 23 and 24 omitted). But I don't have a longer K program handy to test with, and you could always argue the result doesn't apply to Whitney's K. Again, it doesn't matter much: the point is that the absolute most the other interpreters could gain from being more L1-friendly is about 10% on those fairly representative programs.

-- cgit v1.2.3