Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I'm not convinced. Compiling the computed goto core with any sort of
> optimisation turns on *really* hurts the machine. I think it's over a
> minute even a 733 MHz PIII, and it happily pages everything else out while
> it's doing it. :-(
Use the "-fno-gcse" option to gcc,
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 09:21:06PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
It turns out the optimization does make a difference for gcc at least, but for
a strange reason. It seems that without optimization gcc allocates a *lot*
more space on the stack for cg_core. I suspect this is
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:09:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ JIT + cg_core ]
I'm not convinced. Compiling the computed goto core with any sort of
optimisation turns on *really* hurts the machine.
Here gcc 2.95.2 just fails (256 MB Mem, same swap)
I doubt t
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I believe that your understanding of the JIT and the GC cores are still
> correct. The problem would be solved if we had some nice way of getting the
> C compiler to generate us nice stub versions of all the non-inline ops
> functions, which we could then place inline. Howe
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 09:21:06PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I'm not convinced. Compiling the computed goto core with any sort of
> optimisation turns on *really* hurts the machine. I think it's over a
> minute even a 733 MHz PIII, and it happily pages everything else out while
> it's doing i
cc: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Andy
Dougherty' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'Perl6 Internals' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need for fingerprinting? [was: Re:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:09:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I don't think I'm sophisticated enough to pull it off on my own, I
> do think it should be possible to use what was learned to build the JIT
> system to build the equivalent of a CG core on the fly, given its
> structure
Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Andy
Dougherty'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'Perl6 Internals'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need for fingerprinting? [was: Re: What to do if
Digest::MD5 is
unava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leo --
I don't know much about the CG core, but prederef and JIT should be able
to work with dynamic optables. For prederef and JIT, optable mucking does
expire your prederefed and JITted blocks (in general), but for
conventional use (preamble setup), you don't pay a
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 04:59:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What I advocate is having possibly only one (maybe too extreme, but
> doable) built-in op pre-loaded
> at opcode zero. This op's name is "useop", and its arguments give an
> opcode (optable index), and
> sufficent information f
Leopold Toetsch:
# the problem is, that as soon as there are dynamic
# oblibs, they can't
# be run in the CGoto core, which is normally the fastest core, when
# executions time is depending on opcode dispatch time. JIT is (much)
# faster, in almost integer only code, e.g. mops.pasm, but fo
27;Andy Dougherty'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Perl6
Internals'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: Need for fingerprinting? [was: Re: What to do if
Digest::MD5 is
unavailable?]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leo --
... Optable build time is not a function of program
size, but rather of optable size
Ok, I see that, but ...
I don't think it remains a problem how to run ops from different oplibs
_fast_.
the problem is, that as soon as there are dynamic oblibs, th
opold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/04/2002 05:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Andy Dougherty'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Perl6
Internals'&quo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leo --
Here's one of the messages about how I'd like to see us link op
implementations with their op codes:
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-internals@;perl.org/msg06193.html
Thanks for all these pointers.
I did read this thread WRT dynamic opcode loading. W
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Josh Wilmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"'Andy
Dougherty'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Perl6 Internals'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: Need f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All --
FWIW, this stuff came up early on in Parrot's infancy.
Pointers, hints, information ...
On a related note, I'm working on a toy VM outside of Parrot to
demonstrate the technique I've proposed here in the past,
Pointers, hints, information ...
thanks,
leo
All --
FWIW, this stuff came up early on in Parrot's infancy. At one time we had
fingerprinting, then we removed it. At one time it was MD5, then we went
away from MD5. IM(NS)HO, the better approach overall is to remove the need
for fingerprinting altogether. I used to know roughly how to get f
18 matches
Mail list logo
