On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 11:14 +0100, Henrik Johansen wrote: > Den 21.02.2010 23:11, skrev Bryce Kampjes: > > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:03 +0100, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Henrik Johansen wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Well, ugly was a strong word. > >>> Reusing less, aka. shorter is a better choice, I guess. > >>> > >> I think the difference is 3 lines for the 4 methods. > >> > >> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Henry > >>> > >>> PS. In VisualWorks, the two perform equally. *Wishing for a Cog VM to > >>> test on* :) > >>> > >> There's no inlining VM available ATM (besides SqueakJ, but that can't > >> run current images) and noone knows when one will be. And even though I > >> didn't try it, I expect that "inlining by hand" saves time and memory. > >> > > I'm working on inlining in Exupery at the moment though progress is > > still slow. (Time I've two young boys)... > > > > Bryce > > > > Will Exupery work on the 0.15 VM now? > IIRC, when making it available, you mentioned there was primitive > collision between Exupery/Closures.
You mean the 0.15 Exupery VM? ;-) Yes, but there's still that problem with closures. I moved the interpreter closure code into the Exupery VMs to allow people to work on closures in the image. I haven't yet implemented the closure bytecodes in Exupery. Closure support will be added to the Exupery JIT after inlining methods without blocks. Then after adding closure bytecode support I'll add inlining of closures. Bryce _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
