Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - For the memoization of globals, I'd like to see what a patch looks
> like that contains only this. We would need some kind of
> declaration to say "memoize globals in the following code", and it
> feels obvious to me that this declaratio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I made a series of measurements with Guile compiled with `-pg
> -O0'. [...]
Hi Ludovic,
This is a slightly rushed reply, I'm afraid, because I'm going away
for a week shortly. (But I have had it in mind for a while, so
hopefully there's some sense i
Hi,
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In addition, I have some comments:
>
> - Just as a general concern, I would personally lean toward only
> adopting changes to the interpreter that affect language semantics
> (especially if they change things to be non-RnRS) if the changes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> memoization + jt + inline | 32.4% 22.1%
> memoization + switch + inline | 31.9% 23.2%
> memoization + jt + funcall| 24.0% 18.3%
> Function call overhead, however, _is_ important, though only the
> second source of improvement.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> I made a series of measurements with Guile compiled with `-pg -O0'.
-O0 will come out wildly different from an actual build, it stops even
the most basic optimizations -- for instance all variables are put in
actual stack slots (rather than held in r
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting piece of work.
>
> It seems to me, though, that there are 3 things going on here.
>
> 1. Memoization of global variable references that yield one of a
>particular subset of common procedures. (I call this part
>memoization be
Hi Neil,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting piece of work.
>
> It seems to me, though, that there are 3 things going on here.
>
> 1. Memoization of global variable references that yield one of a
>particular subset of common procedures. (I call this part
>memoization be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I conducted an experiment with the evaluator consisting in implementing
> "inlining" of calls to a few primitive procedures and I'd like to get
> feedback about it.
Interesting piece of work.
It seems to me, though, that there are 3 things go
