Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> D'oh! (I should edit this all out but, well...) If we go with a one > frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing > *anything* with the stack. Which makes the differentiation between a > return continuation and a regular continuation irrelevant, as they'd > be identical. Ok. BTW: $ parrot tools/dev/bench_op.imc --times=1000000 'new P10, .PerlInt' Time for 1M ins: 0.314813 $ parrot tools/dev/bench_op.imc --times=1000000 'new P10, .RetContinuation' Time for 1M ins: 1.679647 $ parrot tools/dev/bench_op.imc --times=1000000 'new P10, .Continuation' Time for 1M ins: 4.876401 (-O3 on Athlon 800) I estimate a special Fat Continuation PMC at around 1 sec per Meg. So avoiding the creation of (Ret)?Continuations at all is still a very valuable goal IMHO. >>What about other sub PMCs: Sub, Closure, Coroutine, Exception_Handler? > Dunno if they're allocated often enough to warrant any extra work. > Maybe exception handlers. Exception handlers are derived from Continuations. All these share some code - not much though. leo
