Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2016
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> How much overhead (size, speed) on scopes would we incur if each frame
> had a pointer to the innermost containing loop context? (On each scope
> check what type the immediate containing scope is, then either set the
> new scope’s containing loop pointer to the containing scope or copy the
> containing scope’s loop context pointer.) Could `next`/`last` benefit
> from that too?
Well there are two approaches: the one you describe, or to add a new
interpreter var, PL_last_loop_ctx say, whose old value is stored in the
block_loop struct part of the context union and is set and restored when
entering or returning from a loop context. That would probably be cheaper.
In addition to extra field needed in the loop struct to store or calculate
the iteration value (as dicusssed earlier), the extra old_last_loop_ctx
field would make the struct block_loop the largest field of the context
union, increasing the size of every context union (from about 17 to 18
64-bit words).
pp_next() etc are already optimised to check if the top context is a loop
context and if so, to not go searching for one; and if it isn't, the extra
contexts need to be popped anyway - so PL_last_loop_ctx probably wouldn't
make much difference to next/last's performance.
--
All wight. I will give you one more chance. This time, I want to hear
no Wubens. No Weginalds. No Wudolf the wed-nosed weindeers.
-- Life of Brian
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next