[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: immediate strings #2

From: Dmitry Antipov
Subject: Re: immediate strings #2
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:29:51 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0

On 11/28/2011 09:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

It's great to see that it can speed up compilation, tho (although
the 1.3% difference could just as well be due to noise).

This noise is quite repetitive, and it should be even more repetitive
and visible after fitting Lisp_String within 32 (or 16, on 32-bit) bytes.

You might want to check what proportion of those strings have a
NULL `intervals' field.

I believe it's typical to have 20-50 intervals for 10000 strings, so
it's worth trying to store string intervals separately (in a kind
of hash table, for example). On the other side, there is a reason to
have extra sizeof(void *) bytes at the beginning of Lisp_String - to


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]