At 04:01 PM 1/6/01 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:59:04AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >Which is exactly what Chip did in his safe-signals patch. 33% slowdown.
> > I think you misremember that number. IIRC it was somewhere between 3%-5%.
>
>Gosh, really? I thought it was so significant that it didn't go in core.
>If it was that small, why *didn't* it go in core?
Because a guaranteed 3-5% slowdown in the interpreter, regardless of
whether you use signals or not (and the vast majority of perl code that
runs doesn't) *is* significant. The cost just wasn't worth the benefit.
>My main point, though, was that this discussion is actually many years old,
>safe signals in Perl is not a new problem, and it might be helpful to people
>if they learnt a few things about the history.
It's safe to say that most of the folks involved are familiar with the
issues in perl 5. You, Nick, Uri, and I at least are, and I expect most of
the folks watching who frequent p5p are as well.
Some of this ground does need to be revisited, since perl 6 isn't going to
be perl 5, and the tradeoffs are going to be different. (I'm still not sure
that checking for pending events every opcode is the way to go, either.
Piggybacking on the end of statement cleanup opcode might be a better
place, depending on how frequently that happens)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
