At 04:53 PM 9/22/2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>I've been thinking about the possibility of building a higher-level
>VM. The current VM is very close to a traditional CPU.
It's not, we just haven't gotten to the interesting bits yet. :)
>What if we
>did something non-traditional that made implement
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 02:13:47AM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Anybody know what the enter/exit scope percentage is?
Naturally, it depends on the code. 10% is a reasonable estimate.
Don't take my word for it. Add this to the top of any program:
use B::Utils;
CHECK {
B::minus_c;
B::Utils::wa
David M. Lloyd wrote:
> Take it from me (the one with several abortive attempts at getting an
> extra compare stuck in Perl 5's dispatch loop): You don't want to stick
> another compare in there. It *kills* performance.
Kills? I thought the event flag test dropped performance by a few
percent.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> I've been thinking about the possibility of building a higher-level
> VM. The current VM is very close to a traditional CPU. What if we did
> something non-traditional that made implementing higher-level
> lexically scoped languages easier?
> I'm proposing:
I've been thinking about the possibility of building a higher-level
VM. The current VM is very close to a traditional CPU. What if we
did something non-traditional that made implementing higher-level
lexically scoped languages easier?
What if the VM (and assembler) had lexical scoping built-in at
[Sorry if this is a duplicate. I sent the original from work.
Is there a spam filter removing messages from non-subscribers?]
I've been thinking about the possibility of building a higher-level
VM. The current VM is very close to a traditional CPU. What if we
did something non-traditional that m
