Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2000
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:17:27PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 06:08:41PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 11:01:39PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:47:59PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > > Well, it would be if I sent it. I'm tired and making mistakes now.
> > >
> > > Without the patch:
> > > u=2.31 s=0.38 cu=134.63 cs=11.73 scripts=261 tests=15242
> > >
> > > With the patch:
> > > u=2.32 s=0.3 cu=135.14 cs=11.67 scripts=261 tests=15242
> > >
> > > Was it really worth it?
> >
> > IIRC the "efficiency" comes into play in one of Nicholas' platforms
> > (ARM Linux?) where double math is really, *really*, slow, and staying
>
> Well, ARM most things, as most ARM cores aren't in chips with floating
> point. But most digital cell phones won't run perl, so it doesn't matter
A fact that is personally very embarrassing to me :-)
> there. [I'm told that 80% of digital cell phones in the last year have
> have ARM CPU cores in them.]
Sounds about right.
> > with integers if at all possible really pays off.
> >
> > There's also the 'correctness' aspect. If NVs smear your low order
> > bits when you need need them you might get fussy about it.
>
> It's not going to be correct until everything in the core that does
> maths is vetted. And there should be scop for speed improvement. eg
Yes, the assumption 'NV better' runs deep.
> --- sv.c.orig Sun Dec 3 20:01:20 2000
> +++ sv.c Mon Dec 4 11:49:12 2000
> @@ -4651,9 +4651,9 @@
> }
> if (!(flags & SVp_POK) || !*SvPVX(sv)) {
> if ((flags & SVTYPEMASK) < SVt_PVNV)
> - sv_upgrade(sv, SVt_NV);
> - SvNVX(sv) = 1.0;
> - (void)SvNOK_only(sv);
> + sv_upgrade(sv, SVt_IV);
> + (void)SvIOK_only(sv);
> + SvIVX(sv) = 1;
> return;
> }
> d = SvPVX(sv);
Looks like fodder for the bleadperl.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next