[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at t
From: |
Jörg F . Wittenberger |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:51:09 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux armv7l; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.4.0 |
Am 19.02.2016 um 13:43 schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:35:01AM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
>> So better the other way around: get rid of the globals.
>>
>> One thing I did not yet try: maybe it's beneficial to have a version of
>> C_kontinue which receives the current av, its size and the c argument to
>> enable av-reuse without accessing those globals.
>
> That won't work because the continuation will lose the vector's size.
Depends on what the alternave C_kontinue would do...
>
>> What tried was a length-prefixed av. Just C_alloc one more word, stick
>> the length in and return av+1. Thus getting rid of the global size.
>
> That was my idea too.
I went for the low hanging fruit first.
>> Works till gc. :-/
>
> I think that's because it's copied onto the temp stack, and then copied
> back onto the stack. In the restart you'll need to prepend the av with
> the size too.
YES. But that's the question: where the hell is the restart? I can't
find it in the source.
If you could point me there, I'd be glad.
>
>> For reference I attach my current modifications. (Including Peters
>> fixes to location-ref to avoid a patch conflict.)
>
> I won't look into this until we've released 4.11, it's too much
> distraction, and generates too much noise on the mailinglist.
> There are other fixes we need to apply first before considering
> such large changes.
Sure, this was just for reference in case someone had a comment.
I'm *not* suggesting this to go anywhere! 5-10% are no huge gain and
I'm still positive that we still can do a little better at least.
Cheery
/Jörg
- [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, felix . winkelmann, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that,
Jörg F . Wittenberger <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/23