Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:59 PM +0200 6/13/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> IMCC is a much bigger problem here.
> I'm not sure it does, or at least that it should. (Though if people
> play interesting games with register set swapping it could, I suppose)
Apart from such trick
At 5:11 PM -0700 6/13/03, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> -Original Message-
From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
The compiler can't decide on not to emit saveall/restoreall - we are
talking here about Parrot calling conventions and the caller saves all.
The compiler may o
At 11:59 PM +0200 6/13/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:33 AM +0200 6/13/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
register windows
I'd rather not have the window, but...
Saving and restoring all the registers is obviously a waste of time
in many cases.
This sentence seems to contradict
> -Original Message-
> From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
>
> The compiler can't decide on not to emit saveall/restoreall - we are
> talking here about Parrot calling conventions and the caller saves all.
>
> The compiler may omit the saveall/restoreall on the last fun
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:33 AM +0200 6/13/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
register windows
I'd rather not have the window, but...
Saving and restoring all the registers is obviously a waste of time in
many cases.
This sentence seems to contradict pdd03 - not that's a waste but ...
When it comes
At 11:33 AM +0200 6/13/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Cachegrind of course states that the memcpy in the register push/pop is
the culprit, the pushN/popN take almost double the time of the other.
I think, there was some discussion ago, if we couldn't use sliding
register windows
I'd rather not have the
truct.
Jonathan Sillito
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: June 12, 2003 4:11 PM
> To: Luke Palmer
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Context, continuations, and call speed
>
>
> At 5:01 PM -0600 6/12/03, Luke Palmer wro
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, at the moment I'm working on getting an implementation of
> classes and objects working. I'm also taking a look at calling speed,
> as I'd really like to not suck with our call times. :)
So first some numbers WRT speed:
Based on calling a bare subrou
At 06:05 PM 6/12/2003 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Second, I see that the registers themselves are in the context structure.
I think this may be a good part of our speed problem with taking
continuations. Now, continuations should *not* restore the registers, so
this strikes me as an incorrect thi
> >Are the register stacks saved with the continuation?
>
> Yes, of course they are.
Er, yeah, um.. Everybody, forget everything I just said %-)
Luke
At 5:01 PM -0600 6/12/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
> At 4:28 PM -0600 6/12/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Okay, at the moment I'm working on getting an implementation of
>> classes and objects working. I'm also taking a look at calling speed,
>> as I'd really like to not suck with our call times. :)
> At 4:28 PM -0600 6/12/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > Okay, at the moment I'm working on getting an implementation of
> >> classes and objects working. I'm also taking a look at calling speed,
> >> as I'd really like to not suck with our call times. :)
> >>
> >> First off, the core stuff looks g
At 4:28 PM -0600 6/12/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Okay, at the moment I'm working on getting an implementation of
classes and objects working. I'm also taking a look at calling speed,
as I'd really like to not suck with our call times. :)
First off, the core stuff looks good. I'd not really looked
> Okay, at the moment I'm working on getting an implementation of
> classes and objects working. I'm also taking a look at calling speed,
> as I'd really like to not suck with our call times. :)
>
> First off, the core stuff looks good. I'd not really looked at it
> until now, but now that I ha
14 matches
Mail list logo
