Re: [PATCH] Speed up compilation of overload.pm a smidge

Thanks! I'd completely forgotten about this.

I understand the change wasn't large/important but if I don't want to fall
through the cracks in future is it better to open a bug before mailing in a
out-of-the-blue patch?

On 28 September 2016 at 09:49, Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:00:06AM +0100, James Raspass wrote:
> > Measured with the following crude perl script calling perf. Perl
> > is in there to get a rough baseline cost of starting perl:
> >
> >  print 'PERL', (`perf stat -r100 perl -e 1             2>&1`)[10];
> >  print 'OLD ', (`perf stat -r100 perl lib/overload.pm  2>&1`)[10];
> >  print 'NEW ', (`perf stat -r100 perl lib/overload2.pm 2>&1`)[10];
> >
> > Produced the following results on my machine:
> >
> >  PERL  5,800,051 instructions # 1.05 insns per cycle ( +- 0.06% )
> >  OLD  14,818,995 instructions # 1.16 insns per cycle ( +- 0.03% )
> >  NEW  14,696,974 instructions # 1.16 insns per cycle ( +- 0.03% )
> >
> > While the numbers did fluctuate between runs, the new code was
> > consistently faster.
>
> Thanks, applied as v5.25.5-43-g607ee43.
>
> --
> That he said that that that that is is is debatable, is debatable.
>

• Re: [PATCH] Speed up compilation of overload.pm a smidge by Dave Mitchell
• Re: [PATCH] Speed up compilation of overload.pm a smidge by James Raspass
• Re: [PATCH] Speed up compilation of overload.pm a smidge by Karl Williamson