[m-dev.] proposal: remove hlc_nest and hl_nest grades

Zoltan Somogyi zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com
Wed Sep 6 22:54:04 AEST 2017

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:48:06 +1000 (AEST), "Zoltan Somogyi" <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
> However, if they do work right now, it would be best to see how fast they are
> compared to their non-nested versions. IF they are faster, and IF there is still
> some prospect of gcc resolving the flakiness (about which I know nothing),
> I would prefer not to delete them just yet. Otherwise ...

I have just checked on the hlc_nest.gc grade.

It does work; it fails only the test cases hlc.gc itself fails (the tailrec warning
cases). On my laptop, it is about 0.9% slower than hlc.gc; on a machine
in the cloud Julien gave me access to, it is 1.7% slower. The cloud machine
gave far more consistent individual times (about 1 second difference
between the slowest and fastest hlc_nest.gc times, vs 5+ seconds),
the latter is very likely closer to the truth.

On that basis, I have no objection to removing the "nest" grade component.

Julien, do you want to do this, or should I?

> Having the code generator generate the functions in their non-nested
> form directly would be simpler and faster, partly because it wouldn't have to cater
> to ml_elim_nested.m's limitations.

Again: Julien, do you want to do this, or should I?


More information about the developers mailing list