On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Nick Lawson wrote:
> My first guess would be that the jit is better at static calls than virtual.
> Nick
>
> > There are strange timings for the following programs. In particular, the
> > static version runs at about half the speed of the nonstatic version,
> > which seems backwards; static takes 232s and nonstatic takes 123s.
^^^ (virtual) ^^^
> > Normally, the static call should be faster to execute, since there is less
> > work to do. Does anyone have any ideas about why this is the case?
The JIT should definitely be better at static calls. But they take twice
as long. What's the deal with that?
The interpreter takes about the same time for both programs.
The Windows NT JIT, by the way, takes 3 seconds for the static version and
50 seconds for the nonstatic version. It probably inlines the static
version, then optimizes it.
pat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
