On 25.09.2006, at 11:40, Gustaf Neumann wrote:
When doing some tests, it shows that the version with
Tcl_NewIntObj() is measurable slower than the version with the
reused result object (no wonder) but as well slower than the
version with Tcl_ResetResult().
For the following test, i measured the total time of calling
a simple xotcl command (... info superclass <someclass>), including
all xotcl overhead. The xotcl command was called 100.000 times, the
test
was performed 100 times to get useful granularity from the timer.
puts [time {time $cmd 100000} 100]
Tcl_SetIntObj(Tcl_GetObjResult(in), 1); 168524,55 100,00%
Tcl_SetObjResult(in, Tcl_NewIntObj(1)) 186699,12 110,78%
Reset & Tcl_SetIntObj(Tcl_GetObjResult(in), 1); 178237,24
105,76%
The timings are from a PowerPC G5 with 2.1 GHz.
This shows that the runtime of the xotcl command is 10% slower with
NewIntObj() and 5% slower with ResetResult() than the runtime
of the command with setting the result obj. I get similar
timings for other commands like "... isobject ..." as well.
The differences are bigger than expected. Certainly, for some
applications that might not matter....
hmhmhmhm... this is most interesting. I would have to see how
and Tcl_ResetResult followed by Tcl_SetWhatever can be slower
than Tcl_SetObjResult. I would bet two are the same (have to do
the same work, rather, Tcl_ResetResult must do even more).
This is most interesting...
