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
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
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
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
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
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
