Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:33:06 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>The problem perl will always run into is that our executable code counts as
>>data to CPUs, and lives in the D cache, along with all the data we work on.
>>Ripping through a few 100K strings'll kill any sort of benefits to keeping
>>the optree small
>
>Time for subroutine threading, isntead of op threading?
>
>That would definitely make the "compiled" code at least twice as big.
FORTH like threaded code is very dense.
>
>Er, I should shut up, because I haven't got a clue how Perl is (or would
>be) implemented. I suspect it's similar to P-code.
Perl5 does not have anything like P-code (well bytecode backend is vaguely
like it but is not mainstream).
Perl5 builds data structures and then walks them - it is in fact closest
to "threaded code" but with irregularities and lumps and embedded data.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
