From: Thibault Langlois
Subject: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <1179939566.575225.184320@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
Hi,
I am about to buy a new machine with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor
(http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm).
I will run the 64bits flavor of Ubuntu. I would like to know what are
the consequences regarding the Common Lisp implementations I may use
(I am now using CMUCL). I would like to stay with a free version
(CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, CLISP etc...)

I will use the machine for desktop, programming and number crunching
applications.

It is the first time I will use a 64bits architecture, I am not sure
what amount of RAM I should buy. Will the same (common lisp) programs
occupy significantly more memory (twice ?) ?

What is your experience running CL on 64bits processors ?
Did you get an increase of performance (at comparable frequencies) ?
Is the increase of address space the main benefit ?

Any hints will be apreciated.

Thibault Langlois

From: Rainer Joswig
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <joswig-9DDC27.19462823052007@news-europe.giganews.com>
In article <························@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
 Thibault Langlois <·················@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I am about to buy a new machine with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor
> (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm).
> I will run the 64bits flavor of Ubuntu. I would like to know what are
> the consequences regarding the Common Lisp implementations I may use
> (I am now using CMUCL). I would like to stay with a free version
> (CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, CLISP etc...)
> 
> I will use the machine for desktop, programming and number crunching
> applications.
> 
> It is the first time I will use a 64bits architecture, I am not sure
> what amount of RAM I should buy. Will the same (common lisp) programs
> occupy significantly more memory (twice ?) ?

2GB or more? 4GB is fine.

> 
> What is your experience running CL on 64bits processors ?

Fine. LispWorks seems to run much faster in 64bit.
OpenMCL also runs in 64bit.

> Did you get an increase of performance (at comparable frequencies) ?
> Is the increase of address space the main benefit ?

Other benefits are:

* less consing for a lot of applications
* the x86 architecture has advantages in 64bit mode.
  Especially it has more registers. The 32bit mode
  is a bit 'crippled' when it comes to registers.
* the x86 machine may have some advantages in 64bit when 
  it comes to multimedia data processing due
  to better/more/wider machinery


> 
> Any hints will be apreciated.
> 
> Thibault Langlois

-- 
http://lispm.dyndns.org
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2irajbby9.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> Other benefits are:
>
> * less consing for a lot of applications

It's worth nothing that this is related to faster integer performance,
since SBCL on x86-64 gives:

* (describe 'most-positive-fixnum)

MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM is an external symbol in #<PACKAGE "COMMON-LISP">.
It is a constant; its value is 1152921504606846975.
Constant documentation:
  the fixnum closest in value to positive infinity

Less consing for bignums comes with it.

> * the x86 architecture has advantages in 64bit mode.
>   Especially it has more registers. The 32bit mode
>   is a bit 'crippled' when it comes to registers.

The actual numbers are 8 general-purpose registers on x86 and 16 on
x86-64.
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <feGdnZut7I5obsnbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Thibault Langlois  <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| I am about to buy a new machine with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor
| (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm).
| I will run the 64bits flavor of Ubuntu. I would like to know what are
| the consequences regarding the Common Lisp implementations I may use
| (I am now using CMUCL). I would like to stay with a free version
| (CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, CLISP etc...)
+---------------

You may not be interested in this combination, but just so you know,
the 32-bit version of CMUCL runs just fine under 64-bit versions of
Linux (e.g., 2.4.21-20.EL, 2.6.7, etc.).


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607
From: Thibault Langlois
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <1179997143.654626.304160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On May 24, 3:09 am, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Thibault Langlois  <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | I am about to buy a new machine with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor
> | (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm).
> | I will run the 64bits flavor of Ubuntu. I would like to know what are
> | the consequences regarding the Common Lisp implementations I may use
> | (I am now using CMUCL). I would like to stay with a free version
> | (CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, CLISP etc...)
> +---------------
>
> You may not be interested in this combination, but just so you know,
> the 32-bit version of CMUCL runs just fine under 64-bit versions of
> Linux (e.g., 2.4.21-20.EL, 2.6.7, etc.).
>

I am interested, does this mean that I can dump a core and use it on
32bit machines ?

> -Rob
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock                     <····@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue                 <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403             (650)572-2607
From: Rob Warnock
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <4--dneRaB5d1z8vbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Thibault Langlois  <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > You may not be interested in this combination, but just so you know,
| > the 32-bit version of CMUCL runs just fine under 64-bit versions of
| > Linux (e.g., 2.4.21-20.EL, 2.6.7, etc.).
| 
| I am interested, does this mean that I can dump a core and use it on
| 32bit machines ?
+---------------

Yes, since you're only running in a purely 32-bit world anyway.

But note Eric Marsden's parallel comment about needing to
have the 32-bit environment installed in your 64-bit Linux.
"Most [64-bit] distributions do so [by default], but not all..."


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607
From: Eric Marsden
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <87myzu2mji.fsf@free.fr>
>>>>> "rw" == Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> writes:

  rw> You may not be interested in this combination, but just so you know,
  rw> the 32-bit version of CMUCL runs just fine under 64-bit versions of
  rw> Linux (e.g., 2.4.21-20.EL, 2.6.7, etc.).

  true, but only if you have installed a 32-bit environment in that
  AMD64 GNU/Linux installation. Most distributions do so, but not all:
  on Debian you must install the libc6-i386 package, for example.
  CMUCL also won't be able to load any 64-bit libraries. 

  It's also possible to install a 32-bit "world" in a chroot and run
  CMUCL there.
  
-- 
Eric Marsden
From: Alex Mizrahi
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <46548449$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
(message (Hello 'Thibault)
(you :wrote  :on '(23 May 2007 09:59:26 -0700))
(

 TL> I am about to buy a new machine with an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor
 TL> (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2quad.htm).

if i'd buy for myself, i'd better buy new dual core E6850. when it will be 
released, it will cost same as quad-core, but it works at 3 GHz speed 
instread of 2.4 of Q6600, and with 1.3 GHz FSB.
certainly number crunching code can work faster on quad-core processor, but 
there are many places when it's hard to make parallel code, and in such 
places E6850 will be faster.. and there is GC, which as far as i know runs 
only on one core on current implementations..

 TL> I will run the 64bits flavor of Ubuntu. I would like to know what are
 TL> the consequences regarding the Common Lisp implementations I may use
 TL> (I am now using CMUCL). I would like to stay with a free version
 TL> (CMUCL, SBCL, ECL, CLISP etc...)

afaik only SBCL and OpenMCL are able to run code on multiple cores 
simultaneously. i've heard something about multithreading in ECL, but i 
suspect it's not mature enough. and ABCL can do this, but most likely you 
won't like implemenation on top of Java VM.

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"I am everything you want and I am everything you need") 
From: Jon Harrop
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <4655c9bc$0$8754$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>
Thibault Langlois wrote:
> What is your experience running CL on 64bits processors ?

SBCL works beautifully.

> Did you get an increase of performance (at comparable frequencies) ?

Yes:

  http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/results.html

> Is the increase of address space the main benefit ?

Better floating point performance is much more important for me.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
The F#.NET Journal
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?usenet
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Common Lisp on 64bits, looking for advice
Date: 
Message-ID: <1180031609.443859.60630@a35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
On May 24, 10:16 am, Jon Harrop <····@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

>
> Better floating point performance is much more important for me.

Have you tried OCaml, Haskell, or F#?  Or even gcc?
I'm sure these will give you the floating point performance you
desire.