At 09:03 02/16/1998 -0800, Tim Rowledge wrote:
>That's because you are doing a recursion on a blcok - which the 
>conventional VM cannot do (cf. blue book) whereas the jitter can 
>as it has the framework in place for working from Closures instead 
>of blocks. I'm sure Ian could add much more detail if you need it.
>> What should I do?
>If you need to run with the conventional vm, rewrite the code to 
>avoid the block recursion. Of course, since it is intended to test 
>the efficiency of recursively calling a block, that would be 
>fairly pointless !

Original source code has 2 recursive block at 2 methods
and says (both):
        This method tests the efficiency of recursively calling 
        a block that
...... mmmmmmm

But One of them produce the result using following test.
So I must rewrite it, although the benchmark result is fairly pointless.


At 15:46 02/16/1998 -0800, Maloney wrote:
>Thanks for posting these results. What kind of machine did you
>run the benchmarks on?

It is the result at Power Macintosh 8500/120 with 750/233 card.
BTW, recently I reported "Time millisecondsToRun: [10 benchmark]"'s
result of my machine is "300" (Jitter), but often it is "283". <g>


--------------------------------------------
$B@>86Ao;N(B (NISHIHARA Satoshi)
e-mail: nishis at urban.ne.jp
      : tcc00164 at niftyserve.or.jp
URL:    http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/nishis/
--------------------------------------------