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

Julien Fischer jfischer at opturion.com
Wed Sep 6 23:49:17 AEST 2017

Hi Zoltan,

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Zoltan Somogyi wrote:

> 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?

If you want to go ahead and do both, feel free.  Given the bits of the
compiler you've been working on recently you are almost certainly better
placed to make the second change than I am anyway.


More information about the developers mailing list