On 09/06/01 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, I just did a test run, converting my sample program from interpreted
> to compiled. (Hand-conversion, unfortunately, to C that went through GCC)
>
> Went from 2.72M ops/sec to the equivalent of 22.5M ops/sec. And with -O3 on
> it went to 120M ops/sec. The smaller number is more appropriate, since a
> JIT/TIL version of the code won't do the sort of aggressive optimization
> that GCC can do.
>
> I'm not sure if I like those numbers (because they show we can speed things
> up with a translation to native code) or dislike them (because they show
> how much time the interpreter's burning). Still, they are numbers.
A 10x slowdown on that kind of code is normal for an interpreter
(where 10x can range from 5x to 20x, depending on the semantics).
But I think this is not a big issue: speed optimizations need
to be possible, there's no need to implement them right now.
lupus
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] debian/rules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monkeys do it better
