[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: 5.1 a little slower than 5.0.2
- From: David Burgess <dburgess@...>
- Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:30:41 +1000
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> 25.9.2004 kello 19:03, Mike Pall kirjoitti:
> > 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>