[squeak-dev] Re: Using #= for integer comparison instead of #==
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Nov 17 05:00:29 UTC 2010
On 11/16/2010 8:05 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
> I wasn't clear when I said atomic code. I expected #= (and #<, #>, etc)
> to _not_ be a real message send when both the receiver and the argument
> are SmallIntegers. Otherwise what's the point of having separate
> bytecodes for them?
Space. It makes a big difference for the most common selectors (#at:,
#at:put:, #size, #+ etc) to be be encoded as bytecodes. It avoids having
to allocate a literal every time you see the selector. Often, the
special selector bytecodes look like this:
messageSelector := self specialSelector: 20.
argumentCount := 1.
I.e., it just dispatches to normalSend where the regular lookup takes
place. Of course, that also means it's a prime place for an optimization
that will evaluate eagerly for known receiver types and so (over time)
optimizations were added, but many of the optimizations that may make
sense in an interpreter have very different tradeoffs in the jit. For a
jit to generate the level of optimization makes no sense because the
code size simply explodes at no benefit if the inline caches are any
good (ours *are* the best Eliot knows how to do and that is a meaningful
On to a finer point. The terminology "real message send" is misleading.
Generally, we (the VM hackers) mean by "real" send a send that requires
a method activation, i.e., the creation of a context, but *not* the
lookup of the method. That excludes for example all (successful)
primitives from being "real sends", and as a consequence writing "1 + 2"
is not a real send by that measure (with or without the bytecode
present) since the primitive will be executed successfully and no "real"
send (method activation) has taken place.
To make matters more complicated, when we talk about "real" sends in the
context of thread switches, semaphores and critical sections, what we
mean is whether there is a suspension point in the send or not.
Obviously, some primitives (#suspend, #yield) must have suspension
points so not all activation-free methods are also
suspension-point-free. I am not entirely sure what the current set of
rules for suspension points in Cog is; in the interpreter it was part of
the activation sequence so any primitive that isn't process related
would not have a suspension point but I don't know if that's still true
More information about the Squeak-dev