Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ another MMD performance compare ]
Just an update. Last benchmark still called MMD via the vtable. Here is
now a compare of calling MMD from the run loop:
$ parrot -C mmd-bench.imc
vtbl add PerlInt PerlInt 1.072931
vtbl add PerlInt Integer 1.
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good stuff! One thing leaps to mind when you mention the cache though...
> keep in mind that blowing L2 cache (which we might be in no danger of
> doing at all, but I'm just bringing it up) might be WORSE than you would
> think on P4 and beyond because of
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 03:33, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> As Dan already said there is no performance hit (at least if the MMD
> tables don't blow the caches).
Good stuff! One thing leaps to mind when you mention the cache though...
keep in mind that blowing L2 cache (which we might be in no danger o
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:33, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Only one question. What's the performance hit likely to be and is there
> any way around that performance hit for code that doesn't want to take
> it?
As Dan already said there is no performance hit (at
