For comparison to march on the same comp: bash-3.2$ perl6 perf.p6 perl6-loop: 63.0037058 c-loop: 76.86853305 (0.82 times faster) native-loop: 0.2170930 (354.08 times faster)
perl6 loops are faster. c style loops are slower. Native loops are even faster relative to the others (for me). We can probably close this RT. Seeing as the issue in the title has been addressed kinda :P LL On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM Daniel Green via RT < perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:27:37 -0700, allber...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Lloyd Fournier <lloyd.fo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > perl6-loop: 84.8739988 > > > c-loop: 67.65849241 (1.25 times faster) > > > native-loop: 0.4981954 (135.81 times faster) > > > > > > > Still quite a lot of optimization to be done on that front. WRT native > int, > > one of the issues is needing to track when boxing is/isn't needed, > > otherwise nativizing can be a pessimization because of constant reboxing. > > The optimizer isn't up to tracking boxing like that yet. > > > > FWIW. > > $ perl6 native-int-perf.p6 > perl6-loop: 117.55178620 > c-loop: 156.7308145 (0.75 times faster) > native-loop: 1.2542871 (124.96 times faster) > > $ perl6 --version > This is Rakudo version 2017.10-211-g2f0da94c3 built on MoarVM version > 2017.10-82-ge876f1484 >
