Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:19:24 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>Code you don't call won't eat up any cache space, nor crowd
>>out some other code. And if you do call it, well, it ought to be in the cache.
>
>Probably a stupid question... But can't you group the code for the most
>often used constructs?
We can - and we will once we know what the "often used constructs" will be
in perl6.
Larry started will with pphot.c in perl5 - but over the years
the bells and whistles have got tacked on where it seemed easiest and
now perl5 needs a re-write to clean it up - perl6 will be that thing
but while perl5 runs a language called Perl5, perl6 (being defined here)
will run a language called Perl6 - being defined on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>So that, if one of those things is loaded in the
>cache, the others are in there with it?
That is the first approximation to what happens - but it is a start...
>
>If all the less needed stuff is more at the back of the executable, it
>wouldn't even have to be loaded, most of the time.
>
>Besides, I'm more worried about unnecessarily loading 600k from disk,
>than from main memory to cache. For short-lived scripts, this loading
>overhead could be quite significant.
Most mordern (and sane) OSes will keep "useful" pages in memory till
they need them for something else. This would be _the_ win for
true byte-compiled (not modified at runtime) scripts/modules - those
pages would not be re-loaded either.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
