[squeak-dev] Time primitivesjkr
tim Rowledge
tim at rowledge.org
Wed Apr 8 02:12:41 UTC 2015
On 07-04-2015, at 7:08 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, your fixes work fine and there is essentially no performance
> difference between named and numbered primitives once the function address has
> been loaded. So for a frequently used primitive, there is no difference at all.
Good; that was the intention!
>
>
> My working assumption is that numbered primitives should be defined only for
> the absolutely essential primitives needed to bootstrap on a new platform,
> and that everything else should be a named primitive.
I’m for that. I’ve occasionally stared meaningfully off into the distance musing about how one might have no numbered prims at all. Usually, falling over ends the recursion I get stuck in.
tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
granary - old folks home
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|