Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-30 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Daniel Grunblatt wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote: [ Mops ] >>plain c 366 > You didn't use -O3 while compiling mops.c, did you? No. Just Makefile's options as defined. But interesting idea. It makes the inner loop look like this: ..L492:

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-30 Thread Daniel Grunblatt
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > [lt@thu8:~/src/parrot-007/examples/mops] > $ perl mops.pl > Iterations:1000 > M op/s:2.22 > > (Iteration count for mops.pl was reduced, patch sent) > > Summary: > Program > Mops > perl5.005_03 > 2.2 > perl6 >

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-30 Thread Melvin Smith
At 10:23 AM 7/30/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: >>Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers >We have already the same Mops as perl5, but additionaly 2.3 seconds >overhead. Just running the byte code is as fast as perl5. > >Without jit, mops.p6 p

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-30 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 10:44 AM +0200 7/28/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >> 2) Some Mops numbers, all on i386/linux Athlon 800, slightly shortend: > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers After the bugfix in perlarray.pmc I can bring you new numbers, which are

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-30 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 10:44 AM +0200 7/28/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >> 2) Some Mops numbers, all on i386/linux Athlon 800, slightly shortend: >> (»make mops« in parrot root) > > > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers > include time to generate the assembl

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-29 Thread Melvin Smith
At 07:57 PM 7/29/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: >On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers > > include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried > > running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-29 Thread Sean O'Rourke
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers > include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried > running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the moment, the > assembler's rather slow) It's mostly the

Re: of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:44 AM +0200 7/28/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >2) Some Mops numbers, all on i386/linux Athlon 800, slightly shortend: >(»make mops« in parrot root) Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried runnin

of Mops, jit and perl6

2002-07-28 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Hi all, 1) perl6 driver program arrived in CVS/languages/perl6 CAVEATS: it generates a lot of intermediate files: ($filename.{warn,imc,pbc,pasm[,c,o,tree,]) an may therefore clobber e.g. mops.c if you run languages/perl6> perl6 -C ../../examples/mops/mops.