On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:07:42PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 06:46:20AM -0700, Jerry Hedden wrote:
> > Results:
> > Rate str tid
> > str 56.5/s -- -83%
> > tid 340/s 502% --
>
>
> The results are completely counterintuitive.
>
> I too expected that the builtin C code for generating
> threads=SCALAR(0x1817fa0) would be faster than going through the overloading
> code in Perl_call_amagic, and then that kicking off a nested call to another
> routine (which happens to be XS)
>
> What's actually happening is that because threads objects already have some
> overloading, then for this stringification of a reference,
> Perl_call_amagic gets called *anyway*.
> We make a message. Only it's never getting used. But we went to all the
> effort.
>
> It will be a SMOP this evening to get rid of creating that message
> needlessly. Which might change the benchmark results. Unless anyone wishes
> to beat me to it.
That takes the benchmark differential to this for a build with -g and
-DDEBUGGING:
Rate str tid
str 275/s -- -29%
tid 385/s 40% --
and this with -O2
Rate str tid
str 500/s -- -50%
tid 1009/s 102% --
So the overloading code is still slowing things down for non-overloaded
stringification, but not as badly.
Nicholas Clark
