> If the importance of "Object class" execution time relative to
> timesRepeat: code is so low (10% loss in execution time) in the example,
> then isn't it going to be even less significant in real code?

That is quite likely - I would expect the actual effect to be neglectable 
(as in < 0.1%). You see - the claim that "it's around 10% slower" is 
ridiculous on both ends. From the micro point of view we have benchmarks 
that show that there is a difference of ~10x between message send and byte 
code (btw the "benchmark" below strikes me as one that can only be seen as a 
micro) so the result is out of the ordinary by two orders of magnitude. For 
a macro I wouldn't expect to see a loop like the one below and so again I'd 
say this is probably wrong by two orders of magnitude.

Whatever it is that is being presented with this "benchmark" I wouldn't use 
it to discuss whether there is a speed difference between the message #class 
and the class bytecode.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samuel Tardieu" <sam at rfc1149.net>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ENH request] self class.


>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> writes:
>
> Andreas> Marcus, I'm surprised to see you making such outrageous and
> Andreas> ridiculous claims:
>
>>> [1000000 timesRepeat: [Object class]] timeToRun
>>>
>>> With special bytecode: 514 Without: 579
>>>
>>> So it's around 10% slower.
>
> Andreas> More likely (given our micro benchmarks) the difference is a
> Andreas> factor of ten (message send vs. byte code).
>
> If the importance of "Object class" execution time relative to
> timesRepeat: code is so low (10% loss in execution time) in the example,
> then isn't it going to be even less significant in real code?
>
>  Sam
> -- 
> Samuel Tardieu -- sam at rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam
>
>
>