On Sunday, 15 May 2016 at 10:29:21 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 05/10/2016 08:45 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

I was listening to a discussion Don and Daniel had about the current implementation of CTFE. They talked about using a byte code interpreter. Even implementing a really crappy byte code interpreter would be a huge improvement.

No need for a byte-code interpreter, it mostly just adds overhead and complexity over an AST interpreter. If you want to go really fast you need some sort of JIT anyhow, but a proper interpreter will be orders of mangnitude faster than the current implementation.

I might refer you to
page 59 ff.

+1 . One need to walk the tree anyway to generate bytecode, which makes it impossible to make it faster for a one time execution.

For frequent executions, then a JIT is preferable, which let the bytecode the favorite choice for more than one, but not too many executions.

Reply via email to