[Vm-dev] Slang inliner effectiveness

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Sun Jul 31 18:53:33 UTC 2011

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Stefan Marr <squeak at stefan-marr.de> wrote:

> On 31/07/11 17:25, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 04:38:39PM +0200, Stefan Marr wrote:
>> Any guess what the reason could be why the C compiler fails to do proper
>> inlineing?
>> I cannot really say, and I am not much of an expert of C compilers.
>> For the most part I was just concerned with the slang inliner itself
>> when I was doing this (it needed some tweaks and fixes before I could
>> get MemoryAccess to work properly). I was very impressed with how well
>> the slang inliner actually worked in practice, though I cannot say too
>> much about what it might take to get a C compiler to achieve similar
>> results. To be honest I would not much care about it, given how well
>> the slang inlining already works, and given that it is generating C
>> code that will work well on most any compiler. I also like the fact
>> that it is 100% Smalltalk, and does not rely on any hidden magic in
>> the external compiler.
> Well, the interesting question for me is, does it pay of in terms of some
> percent speedup if I walk over the RoarVM codebase and add some more
> inline/force_inline hints here and there.
> Perhaps I should just try it, the only question then is, where to start,
> and where to stop ;)

The experiment to do is to modify Slang so that you can get it to do no
inlining but add the inline keyword to all methods marked inline and compare
the performance of the C compiler inlined code vs the Slang inlined code.
 However, given Roar has architectural overheads I'd also do this experiment
on the base interpreter.

> Thanks
> Stefan
>> Dave

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20110731/d78e09bb/attachment.htm

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list