Re: 5.1 a little slower than 5.0.2

[David Burgess <dburgess@...>]

On MSVC may I suggest that someone with the time and energy,
spends some time with the profiler and working set tuner. (WST)


On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:43:31 +0300, Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@sci.fi> wrote:
> 
> If this kind of performance gains (magnitude 10%!) are easily gained,
> even if they're platform specific, I would like them to be used out of
> the box. :)  The reason?  People will be comparing Lua with other
> scripting languages (s.a. Python) in real world situations, and most
> likely using x86 platforms doing that.
> 
> -ak
> 
> 25.9.2004 kello 19:03, Mike Pall kirjoitti:
> 
> 
> 
>   Hi,
> >
> > Following up to myself:
> >>   A combined inline assembler replacement may speed up the code quite
> >>   a bit. Anyone know what the fastest way to determine whether a
> >> double
> >>   fits into an int is on x86?
> >
> > Well, it's simpler than I thought: the FPU already stores overflow and
> > precision loss bits in the status word. You just have to check them
> > after
> > the fistpl instruction.
> >
> >>                 -O     -O2    -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> >> lua-5.0.2       3.30   3.40   3.60
> >> lua-5.1-work0   3.72   4.30   3.44
> >> lua-5.1-work2   4.03   4.18   3.50
> >
> > Trying the same tests with the appended patch:
> >
> > lua-5.1-work2a    3.82   4.07   3.28
> >
> > Looks better now.
> >
> > There are plenty more optimization opportunities in ltable.c and lvm.c,
> > but I'll leave that to someone with an immediate need. Dito for the
> > conversion of the GCC assembler macros to MSVC syntax.
> >
> > Bye,
> >      Mike
> > <getnum.patch>
> 
> 



-- 
db