On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 12:06:22PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote: > Just my 2 pesos. > > When CPUs are 10% faster, would this little optimization matter? > > A typical CPU traps invalid derefs by segfaulting the process, > but the CPU itself doesn't explode. > > I do see Dan's point, but I also predoct people gravitating > towards the "safe" interpreter because of that extra fuzzy.
Dan: : There's no checking on purpose. We're assuming that the interpreter's : internal state is consistent, and that the code compilers emit is : correct. : : The Safe-mode interpreter can and will check both S and P registers : for correctness in the opcode functions, but the base interpreter can : skip it. I think that Dan wants all that 10% for himself. And then some more. :-) Even if IBM give Dan 9.09% off the price of every CPU so he can get the 10% more CPU and have perl6 run as fast for the money he was going to spend originally. And all this doesn't matter unless VMS runs on them. :-) I also wonder if on April 1 the SEGV handler will attempt to work out what line of code the SEGV was in, use perl6 LWP to contact an online CVS blamelog, and then mail nastygrams at the person it says was responsible. Or just mail the coredumps :-) Nicholas Clark -- Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
