David L . Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>No, because each table lookup takes less time than comparing one
>letter of a text string.
Er, I don't think so.
A lookup takes serveral cycles on a RISC machine
due to memory latency even to the cache. A pipelined string compare takes
less than a c
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I'm obviously missing something about vtables. It'll be obvious when someone
>corrects me, but...
>
>Currently, SvPVX(foo) requires one lookup; with a vtable, it would necessitate
>two, (One to find the functino in "foo", and then the functino must find th
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Currently, SvPVX(foo) requires one lookup
No lookups at all -- SvPVX(foo) is just a pointer offset, i.e. an add.
> with a vtable, it would necessitate two, (One to find the functino in "foo",
> and then the functino must find the data in "foo")
It would probably work somet
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 09:02:21AM +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
> > sv->vtable->svpvx;
> >
> > Isn't this going to really, really hurt?
>
> Doing three C pointer lookups is going to be less expensive than
> invoking a subroutine
But you're doing that as well. vtables store function pointers.
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> I'm obviously missing something about vtables. It'll be obvious when someone
> corrects me, but...
>
> Currently, SvPVX(foo) requires one lookup; with a vtable, it would necessitate
> two, (One to find the functino in "foo", and then the functino must find the
> data in "
No, because each table lookup takes less time than comparing one
letter of a text string.
> sv->vtable->svpvx;
>
> Isn't this going to really, really hurt?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does despair.com sell a discordia
