Results for VisualAge (just FYI): | count | count := 0. [1 to: 10000000 do: [:i | count :=count + 1]] timeToRun. "151702"
| count | count := 0. [10000000 timesRepeat: [count := count + 1]] timeToRun. "139971" (results are in microseconds) So maybe there's a case for inlining #timesRepeat: (or making a clear comment that it is much slower in Pharo) Just my $0:02 -- Cheers, Peter On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Cédrick Béler wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I noticed quite a difference between the two method who "looks" the same > to me. Is it normal ? > > > > Normal. to:do: is lnlined (compiled as jumps in the bytecode), whereas > timesRepeat: is a message > send with a closure activation. > > Marcus > > fun is the difference between: > > (1 to : 10000) do: > and > 1 to: 10000 do: > > one is compiled to jumps, the other not and in addition creates a temp > collection. > > Marcus > > > > > I use a rc image (haven't tested in squeak). And it's the same on windows > and linux. > > > > count := 0. > > [1 to: 10000000 do: [:i | count :=count + 1]] timeToRun." 677" > > count := 0. > > [10000000 timesRepeat: [count := count + 1]] timeToRun" 2571" > > > > If not normal, I'll open a issue. > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Cédrick > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
