Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ... I strongly advocate rejigging the >> stacks so that one stack frame = 1 stacked thing + 1 link to the next >> thing in the chain. > > Let's do things in correct order. First was method cache. 2nd the > debatable return continuation recycling. Both accummulated, sum up to > 300% speedup. Next is - that's true - stack code or better register > preservation costs. > > Please note that the current stack code is in, to make it working again. > It was broken a long time. Now its by far less broken. All improvements > are welcome. > >> ... No need for COW, no need for memcpy when allocating >> continuations, no worrying complexity to deal with while you're trying >> to get the behaviour right. > > Implementations of better schemes are much appreciated. > >> Oh, an no need for RetContinuations either. > > You seem to be mixing up different issues with that statement. Using > plain Continuation PMCs for returning just from subroutines was dead > slow, w or w/o COWed stacks.
But when a Continuation is simply a collection of pointers to the tops of the various stacks (and I really do think it should include P1 in that list...) will it really be that slow? I'm surprised.
