On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:09:14 +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 17/02/2008, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> HydraPing depends on methods which are provided by FFI, but FFI is no
>> longer in stock .images (which I'm using as all the Squeakers do ;-) So
>> HydraPing DNUs on #unsignedLongAt:put:, but there are other messages in
>> the #'platform independent access' category of ByteArray which can do  
>> what
>> you want HydraPing to do.
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:38:23 +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> > On 17/02/2008, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> >> An .image with the HydraVM-sig.8 package loaded does not startUp on a
>> >> non-Hydra VM.
>> ...
>> > My fault, i forgot to check loading HydraVM package under non-Hydra  
>> VM.
>> >
>> > Currently I doing major rewrite of checkForInterrupts() and all is
>> > what around it.
>>
>> Did you consider the performance comparision which someone asked about,
>> over in squeak-vm list?
>
> you mean mentioned 10-20% speed loss?

Nah, what Gulik asked in the "Interrupt checking in HydraVM using event  
system" thread in squeak-vm. BTW: squeak-vm list does not show up all  
messages (for me), some I only see in NNTP's  
gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.vm.devel ...

> It's an impartial drawback of objectification, there's little what we
> can do about this.

Yes, that's a tough one.

> I didn't putted benchmarks in public, but i measured them.
> - microBenchmarks shows about 5% bytecode crunching speed loss
> - macroBenchmarks (there are 4 of different macro benchmarks which
> Andreas gave me) showing about 10% speed loss on my box, interesting
> that of them runs faster, without any reason :)

Which ones: some as in "don't know which one"? Are they posted somewhere?