COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00008 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	 SAIL
C00004 00003	 ELISP/UCILISP
C00005 00004	 T/UCILISP
C00006 00005	 LM-2
C00007 00006	∂03-Oct-82  2050	James Bennett <csd.Bennett at SU-SCORE> 	initial timings    
C00010 00007	 PUZZLE
C00011 00008	 PUZZLE
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
;;; SAIL
(timit)
success in 2005 trials
Cpu Time = 8.736
Elapsed Time = 15.4666667
Wholine Time = 12.85
GC time = 0.421
Load Average Before = 0.560385704
Load Average After  = 0.62576735
NIL 
success in 2005 trials
Cpu Time = 8.762
Elapsed Time = 21.0833333
Wholine Time = 12.9333333
GC time = 0.422
Load Average Before = 0.62777853
Load Average After  = 0.77028763
NIL 
success in 2005 trials
Cpu Time = 8.758
Elapsed Time = 22.3166666
Wholine Time = 13.2333333
GC time = 0.422
Load Average Before = 0.85665059
Load Average After  = 0.982417345
NIL 


;;; PUZZLE (model B)
success in 2005 trials
Cpu Time = 7.865
Elapsed Time = 14.5666667
Wholine Time = 11.8333334
GC time = 0.0
Load Average Before = 0.63950753
Load Average After  = 0.70015371
NIL 
;;; ELISP/UCILISP
Elisp:  25.133 sec.
R/UCI Lisp: 75.622 sec.
R/UCI Lisp with NOUUO NIL:  25.840 sec.
;;; T/UCILISP
∂10-May-82  2101	Mabry Tyson <Tyson at SRI-AI> 	UCI Lisp on Basket Puzzle    
Date: 10 May 1982 2055-PDT
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson at SRI-AI>
Subject: UCI Lisp on Basket Puzzle
To: rpg at SU-AI

Results on the Basket Puzzle Benchmark for UCI-Lisp (version from UTexas-20,
tests run on SRI-AI 2060).

Compiled, slow links:	85.804 seconds (no GC)
Compiled, fast links:	23.966 seconds (no GC)
-------

;;; LM-2
;; 6. PUZZLE

(DEFUN TIME-PUZZLE ()
  (TIMING "PUZZLE" (START)))

;; Compiled:  59.0 Seconds
∂03-Oct-82  2050	James Bennett <csd.Bennett at SU-SCORE> 	initial timings    
Date:  3 Oct 1982 2046-PDT
From: James Bennett <csd.Bennett at SU-SCORE>
Subject: initial timings
To: rpg at SU-AI
Stanford-Phone: (415) 497-2225
Home-Phone: (415) 322-2233

Dick,
	I got it to work. You are right about Interlisp array indicies
starting at 1 rather than 0. I thought that the ADD1's would unduly
increase the running times but I think that this effect is in the noise
after looking at the following results. First I block compiled the functions,
timed start, and then did the same with the uncompiled versions. As
you can see below, compiling had little effect. I would say that array
access sucks in Interlisp. I suggest that you run the breakdown package
on this function just to see were it is spending its time, jim

NIL
←(TIME (START) 1 0]   ; bcompl'd version

success in 2005 trials
0 conses
1481.138 seconds
2782.667 seconds, real time
NIL
←LOAD(PUZZLE]
FILE CREATED  3-Oct-82 13:00:20
PUZZLECOMS
(START redefined)
(DEFINE-ARRAY redefined)

collecting arrays
7820, 10380 free cells
<CSD.BENNETT>PUZZLE..10
←REDO TIME  ; expr version

success in 2005 trials
0 conses
1481.692 seconds
2397.734 seconds, real time
NIL
←PL START
CODE : #176777
EXPR : (LAMBDA NIL (& 0) --)
←UNSAVEDEF(START CODE]
CODE
←REDO TIME

success in 2005 trials
0 conses
1479.684 seconds
2426.698 seconds, real time
NIL
←DRIBBLE]
-------

;;; PUZZLE

Common Lisp arrays
D3
Open-compiled, safe, Display-up
Elapsed	14.9
CPU	14.9

Open-compiled, safe, Display-down
Elapsed	14.0
CPU	14.0

Closed-compiled, safe, Display-up
Elapsed	49.3
CPU	49.3
;;; PUZZLE

Common Lisp arrays
D2
Open-compiled, safe, Display-up
Elapsed	121.0
SWAP	.252
CPU	121.0

Open-compiled, safe, Display-down
Elapsed	91.0
CPU	91.0

Closed-compiled, safe, Display-up
Elapsed	278.0
CPU	278.0

InterLisp arrays (1-based version)
Elapsed	616.0
SWAP	.087
CPU	616.0
PGFLTS	2