2011-05-21 10:32, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard skrev: >> The supposed inefficiency of recursive implementations is based >> largely on the properties of hardware that is now obsolete. With >> modern processors there's no great efficiency hit. In some of the >> smaller microcontrollers, it's true, you do have to worry about stack >> overflow; but the ARM processors, for example, provide plenty of stack >> space. >> >> In the microcontroller world, the big performance hits come from the >> fact that the only available compilers are for C and sometimes C++. >> (And nobody uses assembly language except for the very little jobs.) >> The nature of the C language prevents compilers from doing >> optimisations that are standard in compilers for high-level languages. >> Most C compilers will, for example, always pass parameters on the >> stack, despite the generous supply of registers available in newer >> hardware. >> > However, some C compilers will *also* have one or more "go faster" > calling conventions that pass parameters in registers, which can be > employed. Over in the PC world, such "go faster" calling conventions > are even the default calling convention if no calling convention is > explicitly specified, for some C and C++ compilers. > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Compiler > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Optlink > > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#Watcall >
Please include attributions, in this case for Peter Moylan and rusi! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
