kaizenkodo/WAFER
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

release: 0.2.8
CI / check (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse Source 
Ships the self-guard expansion, and corrects what the benchmark tables claim.
Measured with wafer, gforth and SwiftForth all native on x86-64 -- the macOS
sf64 build runs under Rosetta 2 and flatters us -- Fibonacci is 1.16x rather
than 0.83x, so sf64 still wins it and wafer takes the other four. README and
OPTIMIZATIONS now carry both tables.
This commit is contained in:
Oleksandr Kozachuk
2026-08-10 12:48:33 +02:00
parent e963e636d3
commit 4f96f8860a
8 changed files with 68 additions and 24 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/OPTIMIZATIONS.md
+22 -6
View File
@@ -511,12 +511,27 @@ The guard runs twice along the recursive path: once at the call site, once insid
### Impact
Fibonacci(25): 356 to 237 microseconds. In fib's tree half of all nodes are leaves, which is where the factor comes from. This is what took the last benchmark past `sf64`.
Fibonacci(25): 356 to 237 microseconds on the arm64 development machine. In fib's tree half of all nodes are leaves, which is where the factor comes from. It does not take Fibonacci past `sf64`, though the arm64 table below says otherwise: with both engines native on x86-64, Fibonacci reads 1.16x and stays the one benchmark `sf64` wins.
## Current Performance vs Gforth
All optimizations enabled, release mode, measured with UTIME:
All three engines **native x86-64**, idle 16-vCPU Xeon Platinum 8124M @ 3.0 GHz,
median of three runs:
```
Benchmark WAFER gforth sf64 WAFER/gf WAFER/sf
Fibonacci(25) 411 3221 355 0.13x 1.16x
Factorial(12)x100K 994 7141 3058 0.14x 0.33x
GCD-bench(20K) 1591 3211 2423 0.50x 0.66x
NestedLoops(50)x1K 889 6824 2342 0.13x 0.38x
Collatz(2K) 391 3981 1659 0.10x 0.24x
```
The same suite on the arm64 development machine (M1 Ultra), which is what the
regression limits in `comparison.rs` are calibrated against:
```
Benchmark WAFER CONSOL gforth sf64 WAFER/gf WAFER/sf
Fibonacci(25) 237 242 3340 287 0.07x 0.83x
@@ -526,11 +541,12 @@ NestedLoops(50)x1K 501 509 7092 1898 0.07x
Collatz(2K) 196 190 3955 633 0.05x 0.30x
```
Times in microseconds. WAFER/gf < 1.0 means WAFER is faster. `sf64` is SwiftForth,
which compiles to native code; two caveats on that column. The install here is an
x86-64 binary under Rosetta 2 while WAFER and gforth are native arm64, so it is a
native-vs-emulated comparison and a native SwiftForth would be faster than these
numbers; and sf64 uses 64-bit cells to WAFER's 32-bit.
Times in microseconds. WAFER/gf < 1.0 means WAFER is faster. The two tables
disagree because the only SwiftForth build for macOS is x86-64 under Rosetta 2
while WAFER and gforth are native arm64 -- and the emulation penalty lands
hardest on the call-heavy benchmark, so Fibonacci reads 0.83x on arm64 and 1.16x
when neither engine is emulated. Believe the x86-64 table about the engines. One
caveat holds for both: sf64 uses 64-bit cells to WAFER's 32-bit.
## Remaining Opportunities