[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at t
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:59:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> Am 19.02.2016 um 13:43 schrieb Peter Bex:
> >> One thing I did not yet try: maybe it's beneficial to have a version of
> >> C_kontinue which receives the current av, its size and the c argument to
> >> enable av-reuse without accessing those globals.
> >
> > That won't work because the continuation will lose the vector's size.
>
> Depends on what the alternave C_kontinue would do...
True, but I think that means it'll need to remember the size somewhere,
so you're probably back to globals again.
> >> Works till gc. :-/
> >
> > I think that's because it's copied onto the temp stack, and then copied
> > back onto the stack. In the restart you'll need to prepend the av with
> > the size too.
>
> YES. But that's the question: where the hell is the restart? I can't
> find it in the source.
>
> If you could point me there, I'd be glad.
It's in CHICKEN_run around line 1495 in current master. That's near the
end, in the if(!return_to_host) block.
> I'm *not* suggesting this to go anywhere! 5-10% are no huge gain and
> I'm still positive that we still can do a little better at least.
I'd be happy to hear if it gives good results, of course.
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, felix . winkelmann, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/16
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/17
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Peter Bex, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that,
Peter Bex <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Argvector handling - maybe we could do better at that, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2016/02/23