Testing on different schemes Peter Lane (06 May 2017 12:15 UTC)
Re: Testing on different schemes Per Bothner (06 May 2017 14:31 UTC)
Re: Testing on different schemes Peter Lane (06 May 2017 18:02 UTC)
Re: Testing on different schemes John Cowan (06 May 2017 18:39 UTC)
Re: Testing on different schemes Peter Lane (09 May 2017 15:53 UTC)
Re: Testing on different schemes John Cowan (09 May 2017 19:04 UTC)

Re: Testing on different schemes Per Bothner 06 May 2017 14:31 UTC

On 05/06/2017 05:14 AM, Peter Lane wrote:
> I (trivially) rewrote the chibi test suite to use SRFI 64 and checked srfi 151 on the following 5 implementations, in R7RS mode. They all passed the test suite.  For interest, I include the running times.
>
> Running times:  (all 558 passes)
>
> chibi (from master)         6m9.853s
> gauche (0.9.6 from master)  4m55.710s
> kawa 2.4                    4m24.362s [with test file split in 2]
> larceny 0.99                37m6.170s
> sagittarius 0.8.3           2m49.283s
>
> Trying to use the chibi part of the cond-expand caused an error,
> ERROR: couldn't find include: "bit.so"

Kawa is subject to the annoying JVM .bytecode size limitation, which is difficult
to work around.  However, it can work to invoke Kawa in line-by-line mode:

   kawa -f srfi-151-test.scm

That only works for SRFI-64-styl;e tests, which do *not* require the whole
file to be wrapped in a single form.

Are the runtimes measured using the reference implementation?
Of course most implementations would not use those.

(It's also worth noting that the srfi-64 reference implementation
does more work on Kawa, in order to produce more detailed logs and messages.
This is conditionally compiled.)
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/