Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- From: Bakul Shah <bakul+usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:16:01 -0700
Rob Warnock wrote:
Bakul Shah <bakul+usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| a) loops should be aligned on a 16 byte boundary
| b) A copying GC should maintain function alignment modulo 16
+---------------
Exactly.
+---------------
| That shouldn't be too hard to fix, right?!
+---------------
Well... In theory, yes, but "theory vs practice", you know. ;-}
You don't want to have to force conses to 16-byte boundaries,
since on a 32-bit machine that would *double* the space taken
by them [though on 64-bit it's a no-brainer],
I am lost. What does consing have to do with loops? I am only talking
about aligning loops (as part of some compiled code).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- From: Rob Warnock
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- References:
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- From: Rob Warnock
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- From: Bakul Shah
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- From: Rob Warnock
- Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- Prev by Date: Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- Next by Date: Re: Keyword abuse (Re: reduced size symbols/keywords)
- Previous by thread: Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- Next by thread: Re: How much tuning does regular lisp compilers do?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|