At 05:32 PM 11/5/2001 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:46:50AM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > The point is that,in my opinion, we don't really need to be faster than
> > now when tracing, etc but we DO have to be faster when running like:
>
>I agree completely. I'd like to see configure-time options for the
>runops loop.
Definitely.
One thing we should consider when building the alternate (i.e. not
blazingly fast) runops loops is size. While the fully-indirect function
dispatch form is slowest, it's also got the smallest incremental cost with
multiple dispatch loops.
We might want to have one fast and potentially big loop (switch or computed
goto) with all the alternate (tracing, Safe, and debugging) loops use the
indirect function dispatch so we're not wedging another 250K per loop or
something.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
