Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl

[Dan Sugalski]

On 14 Aug 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote:

> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> DS> How much of the current base of target ports are you willing to give up in
> DS> the first cut for fast? The TIL suggestion, amongst others, has the
> DS> potential to speed things up rather a lot, but it has the disadvantage of
> DS> requiring intimate knowledge of each target port. My preference is to get
> DS> a snappy interpreter and leave the Java JIT-equivalents to the various
> DS> chip/OS vendors, but I'd bet the TIL style would be faster.
> 
> I don't think so. 
> 
> A TIL doesn't have to be machine code. A first pass for a port that does
> the TIL inner loop in C, should be quite portable. 

Okay, now I'm confused. I was under the impression that doing a TIL really
required getting down 'n dirty with assembly-level jmps and jsrs, the
alternative being the op-loop we've got now, more or less.

Or are you thinking of having the op functions just goto the start of the
next one on the list? I'd think you'd blow your stack reasonably soon that
way. (Why do I sense my reading list is about to get larger?)
 
                                        Dan