On Wednesday 23 December 2009 at 11:41, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > A total benchmark improvement of ~3.7% is certainly nothing to ignore. > However, this isn't going to be a 100% gain: we do after all need to > factor in the need to create new string headers and possibly allocate > new buffer storage on string modifications. We're going to be better > than even, but I don't thnk we're going to be at 3.7% after all those > changes are made.
The question is whether we pay the price of allocating a new COW header for every STRING we don't want anything else to modify or allocating a new header for every STRING we know is a modification. > Besides the few test cases that you mention, do we have a lot of > places where strings are specifically used with reference semantics in > order to do inplace modifications in multiple places in the code? That > is, is this going to be a huge change to existing PIR code? I don't know that the test suite is representative of existing code. Allison suggested asking HLL developers and people who've written PIR libraries about their expectations of STRINGs in S registers in PIR. -- c _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
