At 01:57 PM 9/2/2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> > I think the only way your going to be able to detect dynamic redefinitions
> > is dynamically. :-)
>
>Not really. Does the program include string eval? That throws out
>optimizations like folding and dead code elimination t
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> No. We're optimizing on what we know at the time.
Um, it looked like you were generating a graph with all possible
optimizations inserted. At what point do you commit to an optimization?
If you only commit at run-time, you need to do a *lot* of state
management. It se
On Sunday 02 September 2001 12:21 pm, Ken Fox wrote:
> The idea of inserting "optimization ops" seems silly too. It would
> be faster to just replace the definition of the sub whenever the
> sub changes. Perl 6 subs are just as fast as ops.
Except not every optimization is 'sub' oriented. Optimi
Wizard wrote:
> Johan Vromans wrote:
> > 'use constant FOO => "foo"' could add some magic to never let FOO
> > being redefined (not a bad coice for a constant).
>
> I like this idea best (for now). Perhaps 'constant sub foo' or 'sub
> foo:constant'?
I wouldn't consider this an optimization. Perl
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 03:29:23PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> 30 -> store
>
> plus a bunch of null ops.
Not strictly true. Constant folding is done by running the interpreter on a
tiny portion of the opcode tree and splicing the result in. No null ops there.
> sub foo {
> no op
>
> 'use constant FOO => "foo"' could add some magic to never let FOO
> being redefined (not a bad coice for a constant).
>
> -- Johan
I like this idea best (for now). Perhaps 'constant sub foo' or 'sub
foo:constant'? By doing it that way, it is apparent to both Perl and the
developer that this i
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sub FOO {"foo"}
> print FOO;
>
> evaluating to:
>
> /-no--"foo"-\
> opt: FOO redefined? -< >---print
> \-yes-call FOO--/
'use constant FOO => "foo
# -Original Message-
# From: Bryan C. Warnock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 3:01 PM
# To: Brent Dax; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Subject: Re: Deoptimizations
#
#
# On Saturday 01 September 2001 05:07 pm, Brent Dax wrote:
# > Of course, the hard part is detect
On Saturday 01 September 2001 05:07 pm, Brent Dax wrote:
> Of course, the hard part is detecting when the optimization is invalid.
> While there are simple situations:
>
> sub FOO {"foo"}
>
> print FOO;
>
> evaluating to:
>
> /-no--"foo"-\
> op
# -Original Message-
# From: Bryan C. Warnock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 PM
# To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Subject: Deoptimizations
#
#
# Random musings from a discussion I had yesterday. (And check
# me on my
# assumptions, please.)
#
# One of the mo
10 matches
Mail list logo
