[racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:35:30 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> Do you have a sense of why Racket performs poorly on the `paraffins`
>> benchmark?
>
> I wouldn't go so far as "poor" for that result,

I only ventured that characterization because it's one of only 3 where
Racket isn't within a factor of 2 of the fastest implementation, the
other two being ctak and takr2, both totally artificial monstrosities.

> but, anyway... I think
> that benchmark turns out to measure mostly allocation. Racket in 32-bit
> mode, where pair and vectors take up half as much space, runs almost
> twice as fast as Racket in 64-bit mode.

Is the Gambit allocator that much faster than ours?  Or does it use
less memory for pairs and vectors?
--
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu