On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >+ cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr + > >PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT) > > When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are skipped > during stack scanning by incrementing cur_var_ptr by sizeof(size_t) * > PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT bytes.
ptrdiff_t is not a pointer type, so cur_var_ptr + PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT skips exactly PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT bytes. You may not be matching ( )'s quite right. > As a side note: applying your patch slows down e.g. life.pasm by ~2%. > (I really don't see why). Are you compiling with optimization enabled ? Is the difference consistent ? If the answer to both questions is yes, it is probably a cache effect related to the new variable on the function stack. I doubt the slowdown is universal. I will try to check on SPARC sometime today. -- Jason
