On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 03:50  PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> A named primitive is very slightly slower since it requires a bit of  
> extra
> work, much of which is cached though, and in fact it could be made  
> exactly
> as fast as an indexed primitive if we wanted to by using a similar  
> trick
> which we do already use for "ultra-fast failure responses" from named
> primitives[**]. For all practical purposes (which means, unless someone
> shows that this is an issue ;-) named primitives are as fast as  
> numbered
> primitives.

I've always thought primitiveExternalCall was a bit heavy even if we've  
resolved
the index, especially since we come via primitiveResponse which looks  
up the millisecond clock time (twice)

Mind on the os-x carbon mac version this is just a inaccurate kinda  
global, versus off to some special
nano-second counter and do lots of math.


> --
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===