Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] speed of Coq 8.8 vs 8.7, 32-bit vs 64-bit

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] speed of Coq 8.8 vs 8.7, 32-bit vs 64-bit


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jim Fehrle <jfehrle AT sbcglobal.net>
  • To: "coq-club AT inria.fr" <coq-club AT inria.fr>, Andrew Appel <appel AT cs.princeton.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] speed of Coq 8.8 vs 8.7, 32-bit vs 64-bit
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:59:35 +0000 (UTC)
  • Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=jfehrle AT sbcglobal.net; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=jfehrle AT sbcglobal.net; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT sonic309-24.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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

fortunately, my VST proof development is itself much more efficient, so therefore I can do big things with a large collection of .v files that each take no more than 1 gigabyte (and usually much less) to process with coqc.

Sounds like a memory leak.  Directly or indirectly, I expect you have to Require all of the .v files for final proof in the series, and you've not mentioned problems with that.  So the compiled-then-loaded form of the .v files is not taking too much memory.  https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/understanding-the-garbage-collector.html says that both the major and minor heaps use compaction, so heap fragmentation shouldn't be an issue either.

Are you using a separate coqc process to compile each .v?  If you compile many .v files in one coqc process, does it run out of memory?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of Page