Paolo Amoroso amoroso@mclink.it writes:
Christophe Rhodes csr21@cam.ac.uk writes:
Be that as it may, rather than speculating further I would suggest to Paolo that he try with the mcclim sources of "a few weeks ago" in the same lisp and compares the results. If there is a difference, then
I have checked out a fresh copy of McCLIM's CVS sources with:
cvs co -D 2006-03-25 mcclim
The test:
(time (clim-listener::com-show-class-subclasses t))
takes about 0.92 s on the same system, i.e. a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV machine running Slackware Linux 10.0 and CMUCL Snapshot 2006-02 (19C).
Compilation with CMUCL remained broken for about a month before late March 2006.
But that's OK, because your timing means that any performance regression happened /after/ the 25th of March. So you can track down any change between the 25th and now on your system to identify the regressing commit.
Cheers,
Christophe