[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: question about output graphs
- To: DG0244@uokmvsa.backbone.uoknor.edu
- Subject: Re: question about output graphs
- From: "Mark A. Tapia" <markt@dgp.toronto.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 18:56:05 -0500
- Cc: info-mcl@cambridge.apple.com
YU Chong Ho writes on Wed Dec 2 23:31:33 1992
Are there some ways to directly output graphs from MCL to the
printer, rather than copy and paste between word processor and
MCL and then print it? Any help will be greatly appreicated.
Try th file /pub/MCL2/contrib/print-u.lisp.hqx available by anonymous
ftp from cabridge.apple.com. The file is a binhexed version (use
any standard utility to decompress it) of a Lisp program that supports
generalized printing, including printing pictures (records of type
:picture). For full details and a complete example, see the file.
mark
- Prev by Date:
Re: Pictures
- Next by Date:
speedup for array ops - summary Thank you to all those who sent replys to my inquiry: RE: speedup array op. This concerned a function that returned the maximum and minimum values for an array. Replies that I have so far are from: Patrick Logan patl@goldfish.mitron.tek.com Rich Lynch lynch@ils.nwu.edu Alex Repenning <ralex@tigger.cs.colorado.edu> Bill St. Clair bill@cambridge.apple.com Michael Travers <mt@media.mit.edu> Espen Vestre <espen@coli.uni-sb.de> There was enough interest and there were enough suprises (for me anyway) that I thought it deserves another go-around. What follows are the results that I got in the form of notes, and the (hopefully minimally corrupted) versions of the suggestions or code. I apologize for the length of this message - but in the interest of clarity, I have reproduced all of the definitions, even though many differ only slightly. I am pleased with the contributions and can use them as is, and would appreciate explanations of the various timings. How closely do the fastest LISP functions here approach C/FORTRAN/PASCAL code? (especially for various FIXNUM element types), or assembly code? Anyone have a feel for this? Would assembly code gain 10%, 100%, 1000% in speed? Thanks again -- Dave ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; notes ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Note 1: This sets up a simple array, complex, real values, 256x256 elements. Note 2: Vanilla version without suggested improvements to avoid wasteful code. 27 secs, 14 sec GC I kept the wasteful version around for several iterations so that the timings were for similar code. See Note 10 for effect of simple improvement. Note 3: Add a few declarations. They didn't help much - not enough of them. 24 secs, 14 sec GC Note 4: Just making sure that the 1-D array used inside Note 2 example was NOT simple (as expected). Bill St. Clair explains why this sort of array is NOT simple: "A simple vector is one for which it makes the most sense to code AREF in-line (given suitable declarations). AREF of a displaced array needs to indirect to the displaced array and add the displacement offset." This is interesting because the byte version of this example (below) is one of the fastest, despite of a non-simple vector being used. Note 5. Using the simple array and running two indicies. 27 secs, 14 GC. Note 6. Same as above, but add declarations. 29 secs. Oops. Note 7. Make a simple vector, fill it with stuff from the original array. Find the limits directly on this vector. (No declarations). 25 secs. 15sec GC. Note 8. Add declarations. 24 secs. 16 GC. NUTS! :-( Note 9. Use a list rather than an array. Stuff list - 11.3 secs, 10 of which is GC. Find limits using list: 14.7 secs, 10.4 of which is GC. ! Why is the list operation so fast? Note 10. Back to square 1, (Note 2), avoid wasteful calls to abs. 14.6 sec, 9.5 GC. Note 11. Take the let out of the loop. No change at all. That's great -- compiler must be smart. Note 12. Insert calls to floating point compiler. 13 secs. 7 GC. (Consing is still being done, but where?) Note 13. Bill's faster version, without (!) floating point compiler: 10.6 secs, 6.6 GC. A blow by blow explanation of why this works so well would be great. --- Now, for the byte version --- Note 14. Set up the array again. Everything went faster, so I quadrupled the array size. Note 15. Vanilla version, no declarations, but no wasteful code. 5 secs. no GC. Note 16. Vanilla version with declarations. 3.7 secs. no GC. Declarations were a respectable help this time. This was the 2nd fastest version! Note 17. Use a simple array, run two indices. 22 secs. Note 18. Same as above, with declarations. 20 secs. Guess that's why everyone uses displaced arrays, whether or not they are simple. Note 19. Tried to generate simple vectors various ways, all of which should have worked, I believe, according to the Optimization doc. (Khosla & St. Clair). Note that making the type 'unsigned-
- Previous by thread:
Re: question about output graphs
- Next by thread:
Rocket Share and MCL
- Index(es):