Re: Severe performance regression with latest CVS sources?

Paolo Amoroso <amoroso@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 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.

But that's OK, because your timing means that any performance
regression happened /after/ the 25th of March.  So you can track down
any change between the 25th and now on your system to identify the
regressing commit.

Cheers,

Christophe