Re: Severe performance regression with latest CVS sources?

Christophe Rhodes <csr21@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Be that as it may, rather than speculating further I would suggest to
> Paolo that he try with the mcclim sources of "a few weeks ago" in the
> same lisp and compares the results.  If there is a difference, then

I have checked out a fresh copy of McCLIM's CVS sources with:

  cvs co -D 2006-03-25 mcclim

The test:

  (time (clim-listener::com-show-class-subclasses t))

takes about 0.92 s on the same system, i.e. a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV
machine running Slackware Linux 10.0 and CMUCL Snapshot 2006-02
(19C).

Compilation with CMUCL remained broken for about a month before late
March 2006.


Paolo
-- 
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log