Re: [Chicken-hackers] Floating point performance

[Peter Bex]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:28:11PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Now, fp+ is only inlineable if the scrutinizer can prove that it's adding
> flonums, otherwise it falls back to a CPS call.  I'm sure we can change
> that relatively easily by making it into an inline function that uses
> check_flonum or so.  We could rename the current one to C_a_u_i_flonum_plus,
> which is more correct anyway since it's unsafe and may crash when given
> another kind of object.
> 
> Of course this means several more intrinsics will have to be added as
> safe versions for each of the specific flonum operators.  Thoughts?

OK, maybe we can do it differently and more controlled by automating
this.  I've created http://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1611 to track this.

I believe this approach also allows us to get rid of some of the rewrites
in c-platform.scm, which I've always found quite an eyesore.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature