[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc.
From: |
Benedikt Rosenau |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc. |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:26:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:41:55AM -0500, Alex Shinn wrote:
> It looks like what the compiled C code ends up doing is just the
> opposite of what you expected. Binding read-char in a LET creates a
> closure, and the code for accessing a closure reference seems to take
> one extra level of indirection compared to a global reference. Or
> something :) But the difference is so small I wouldn't worry about it.
The compiler assumes usual-integrations by default. So, it can resolve
procedure calls at compile time. The level of indirection introduced by
a LET harms the performance.
My two bits,
Benedikt
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., Hans Bulfone, 2006/04/03
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., Alex Shinn, 2006/04/04
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., Hans Bulfone, 2006/04/06
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., F. Wittenberger, 2006/04/06
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., Alex Shinn, 2006/04/06
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc.,
Benedikt Rosenau <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., felix winkelmann, 2006/04/10
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., Hans Bulfone, 2006/04/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] read-byte, etc., felix winkelmann, 2006/04/20