[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: `SCM_MAKE_CHAR ()' signedness issue

From: Mike Gran
Subject: Re: `SCM_MAKE_CHAR ()' signedness issue
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:05:51 -0700


On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 10:26 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: 
> Hi,
> Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Aug 16, 2009, at 18:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >>> There's always the inline-function approach, too.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately no, because we're still not assuming `inline' keyword
> >> support from the compiler.
> >
> > Right, but inline.h deals with that; if "inline" isn't supported you
> > just get a declaration and make a function call.  There would be a
> > performance hit from doing the function calls all the time,
> Yes, I'm not sure that's something worth trying.

On my system I ran a test with SCM_MAKE_CHAR as a macro, an an inline,
and as a never inlined function.  I ran ./check-guile twice for each.

SCM_MAKE_CHAR as macro, ./check-guile gives
real 0m22.680s 0m22.658s
user 0m7.700s  0m7.640s
sys 0m1.067s  0m1.124s

SCM scm_i_make_char (scm_t_int32 x) __attribute__((noinline))
real 0m22.010s 0m21.998s
user 0m7.631s  0m7.648s
sys 0m1.151s  0m1.076s

SCM inline scm_i_make_char (scm_t_int32 x)
real 0m22.107s 0m21.914s
user 0m7.614s  0m7.726s
sys 0m1.115s  0m1.068s

The timing differences between them seem to be in the noise, for this
one test.



reply via email to

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