On 27 September 2010 22:10, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Johan Brichau wrote: > >> >> On 27 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: >> >>> "Works fine" is a value judgment that can cut both ways: one could also >>> argue that VW lacks a useful optimization of literals. Non-literal strings >>> should do what you want. >> >> I wonder how useful the optimization is, actually. >> Probably not many (if any) methods will use the same literal multiple >> times and count on the compiler to optimize them into the same literal. > > I think this is from the 80's or 90's where this could save some memory. > According to my calculations in Squeak 4.2 with some extra packages loaded > it saves at least 36591 bytes (object size + 1 slot in the literal array), > which is only 0.79 bytes / method. >
Well, you can save a bit more, if you scan a whole image literals and unify them. This could be userful for tidying up the image size. > > Levente > >> >> Inversely, I have never run into that issue myself either, until I was >> just testing those little snippets for the students. Or... at least, I think >> I never have :-) >> >> Johan >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
