On 04/12/02 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> FWIW, the numbers were:
>
> No JIT: Parrot 866 gen/sec Mono 11 gen/sec
>JIT: Parrot 1068 gen/sec Mono 114 gen/sec
Interesting data: was this taken a while ago?
I get different ratios on my machine (PIII 1.1):
Parrot JIT: 850 (though the output
At 02:08 PM 4/12/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 12:49 PM +0200 4/12/02, Paolo Molaro wrote:
>>On 04/11/02 Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>> I'm not sure which is worse--the amount of data we're copying around,
>>> or the fact that we eat Mono's lunch while we do so.
>>
>>:-)
>>Could you post the code
At 12:49 PM +0200 4/12/02, Paolo Molaro wrote:
>On 04/11/02 Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I'm not sure which is worse--the amount of data we're copying around,
>> or the fact that we eat Mono's lunch while we do so.
>
>:-)
>Could you post the code for the sample?
Simon did a one-for-one translation of
On 04/11/02 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm not sure which is worse--the amount of data we're copying around,
> or the fact that we eat Mono's lunch while we do so.
:-)
Could you post the code for the sample? Is it based on the snipped Simon
posted a while ago where it used the pattern:
strin
At 5:13 PM +0200 4/11/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>The memory_collected GC statistic does not get updated at present. Patch
>below fixes.
>
>Note that a 5000-generation run of life.pasm allocates 32K, and copies
>almost 58MB.
Applied, as I make the interpreter crash badly in another directory. :)
I'm
The memory_collected GC statistic does not get updated at present. Patch
below fixes.
Note that a 5000-generation run of life.pasm allocates 32K, and copies
almost 58MB.
--
Peter Gibbs
EmKel Systems
Index: resources.c
===
RCS file:
