On 25 March 2011 10:25, Toon Verwaest <[email protected]> wrote: > >> which paper? >> Is there something more than the blog? I read the old VW5 paper but eliot >> told me that this is old and not accurate with Cog anymore. > > Mmh... he was referring me to that "old" paper indeed. > http://www.esug.org/data/Articles/misc/oopsla99-contexts.pdf > > @igor that was exactly my point. You avoid copying temps around which you > might not need, and accesses to shared temps from your own frame keep on > having direct access rather than 1 indirection. But then again, this might > not pay off vs the speedup of the remote array in the long run depending on > the implementation details of the stack/jit VM, I clearly have no idea. It > would be cool to see some benchmarks that compare exactly having remote > arrays vs linked context frames but both on a stack. > If i'm not mistaken, remote temp vectors are rare.. (Eliot could give you a nice doit to count all closures in system which using temps vector)
So if its even slow, its not a big deal anyways. > Unless I'm still completely missing the point and there's a grand JIT-reason > or other to not take the whole captured stackframe off... If this hasn't > been tried out yet I'd be interested in collaborating on that. I really > wonder what the speed diff is. > > cheers, > Toon > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
