Don't forget that (if I'm missing somthing) by the time that pbc2c.pl work with all the ops it will be much slower than the jit.
Daniel Grunblatt. On 21 Dec 2001, Tom Hughes wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > > I suspect it is also rather questionable to call system calls > > > directly rather than going via their C library veneers - that is > > > even more true when you come to things (like socket calls) which > > > are system calls on some machines and functions on others. > > > > We are not always calling system calls directly, we can use the C library > > when ever we need it, check out the .jit syntax. > > I did have a brief look last night but I must have missed that. No > problem that front then. > > Incidentally the JIT times are definitely impressive... Times for > a 1.33 GHz Athlon are like this: > > dutton [~/src/parrot] % ./test_parrot ./examples/assembly/mops.pbc > Iterations: 100000000 > Estimated ops: 200000000 > Elapsed time: 4.806858 > M op/s: 41.607220 > > dutton [~/src/parrot] % ./test_parrot -j ./examples/assembly/mops.pbc > Iterations: 100000000 > Estimated ops: 200000000 > Elapsed time: 0.300258 > M op/s: 666.093736 > > dutton [~/src/parrot] % ./examples/assembly/mops > Iterations: 100000000 > Estimated ops: 200000000 > Elapsed time: 0.324787 > M op/s: 615.788117 > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://www.compton.nu >
