On Jun 13, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: > Unfortunately I could not observe any improvement on Linux x86. The > performance is actually slightly worse with your patch (using master, > c48a109d668f3186bb4a213940c0b0b81a1ad03d). I run the benchmarks with no > csc options and with -O3. Here are the results ([2] is the chicken with > the _setjmp/_longjmp patch):
There won't be any improvement on Linux because _setjmp == setjmp; Linux doesn't save the signal mask on setjmp() unless the obscure __FAVOR_BSD is #defined. The performance regression you observed could just be statistical noise as well -- but, sometimes gcc will inline known calls and it might do that for setjmp and not _setjmp, even though setjmp is just a macro alias for _setjmp. Only way to be sure is to look at the assembly output. Other than figuring that out, it would be a good idea to test on mingw and OS X (I was going to do this). However testing on other platforms like cygwin or Solaris (or more obscure?) is problematic. It is not really a question of whether _setjmp works but if every platform supports _setjmp. I don't know if this is something to throw in before the release, if one is coming soon, unless we are going to test every supported platform before release. Anyone else? JIm _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
