[pypy-svn] r60678 - pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009

[davide at codespeak.net]

Author: davide
Date: Sun Dec 21 12:10:22 2008
New Revision: 60678

Modified:
   pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex
Log:
changed sentence which Antonio does not like

Modified: pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex
==============================================================================
--- pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex	(original)
+++ pypy/extradoc/talk/ecoop2009/benchmarks.tex	Sun Dec 21 12:10:22 2008
@@ -91,15 +91,14 @@
 Table \ref{tab:factorial-fibo} shows the seconds spent to calculate
 the factorial and Fibonacci for various $n$.  As we can see, for small values
 of $n$ the time spent running the JIT compiler is much higher than the time
-spent to simply interpret the program.  This is an expected result, as till
-now we only focused on optimizing the compiled code, not the compilation
-process itself.
-
-On the other hand, to get meaningful timings we had to use very high values of
-$n$.  This means that the results are incorrect due to overflow, but since all
-the runnings overflow in the very same way, the timings are still
-comparable. \anto{I think we should rephrase this sentence}.  For $n$ greater
-than $10^7$, we did not run the interpreted program as it would have took too
+spent to simply interpret the program.  This is an expected result
+which, however, can be improved once we will have time
+to optimize compilation and not only the generated code.
+
+On the other, for reasonably high values of $n$ we obtain very good
+results, which are valid despite the obvious overflow, since the 
+same operations are performed for all experiments.
+For $n$ greater than $10^7$, we did not run the interpreted program as it would have took too
 much time, without adding anything to the discussion.
 
 As we can see, the code generated by the JIT can be up to about 1800 times faster