On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:35:47PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:47:09PM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > BTW, it may be very possible for me to write the p6ge generator so
> > that it can be switched between the PIR and bsr/ret calling conventions,
> > so we don
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:47:09PM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> BTW, it may be very possible for me to write the p6ge generator so
> that it can be switched between the PIR and bsr/ret calling conventions,
> so we don't need to resolve this entirely now. And we could then benchmark
> the t
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> As already stated, I don't consider these as either light-weight nor
> faster. Here is a benchmark.
>
> Below are 2 version of a recursive factorial program. fact(100) is
> calculated 1000 times:
>
> PIR
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> As already stated, I don't consider these as either light-weight nor
> faster. Here is a benchmark.
>
> Below are 2 version of a recursive factorial program. fact(100) is
> calculated 1000 times:
>
> PIR 1.1 s
> bsr/re
At 5:08 PM -0500 11/17/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Chopping out the multiplication (since that's a not-insignificant
amount of the runtime for the bsr/ret version) gives:
PIR:
real0m3.016s
user0m2.990s
sys 0m0.030s
bsr/ret
real0m0.344s
user0m0.340s
sys 0m0.010s
and with -Oc, f
At 10:03 PM +0100 11/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ this came up WRT calling conventions ]
I assume he's doing bsr/ret to get into and out of the sub, which
is going to be significantly faster.
Who says that?
As already stated, I don't consider these as either light-weight nor
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ this came up WRT calling conventions ]
I assume he's doing bsr/ret to get into and
out of the sub, which is going to be significantly faster.
Who says that?
As already stated, I don't consider these as either light-weight nor
faster. Here is a benchmark.
Below are 2 version
