On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
> This one is fully functional.
>
> On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
What's it do for non-lazy runs?
> (I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
> This one is fully functional.
> On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
We need that!!!1
> (I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants; it's pretty long
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 01:52, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
> This one is fully functional.
>
> On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
Yay!
>
> (I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants; it's pre
Okay, after some major changes, here's the second revision of my patch.
This one is fully functional.
On my system, it creates over a 10x speedup for lazy DOD runs!
(I'll post the benchmark program if someone wants; it's pretty long)
Luke
Index: core.ops
===
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch writes:
>>
>> Can you summarize your scheme again please WRT this and other
>> enhancements. I'm somewhat lost in all the improvements that were
>> proposed since your original.
> Alright, here's a patch that implements it.
Wow.
Some remar
Leopold Toetsch writes:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In any case, seeing that depth first case (see the footnote) has given
> > me even more hope that I won't be agonizing over scope exit.
>
> Can you summarize your scheme again please WRT this and other
> enhancements. I'm some
