Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

3041 discussions

gcc/icc
by Mirar ＠ Pike developers forum 10 Feb '03

10 Feb '03

I downloaded icc-7.0 and ran a comparison. test gcc icc Pike start overhead..... 0.001s 0.001s Ackermann............... 0.660s 0.646s Append array............ 0.470s (1063830/s) 0.534s (935551) Append mapping.......... 2.890s (3460/s) 2.785s (3591) Append multiset......... 0.476s (20997/s) 0.432s (23148) Array & String Juggling. 0.687s 0.604s Read binary INT16....... 0.283s (3537736/s) 0.257s (3892944) Read binary INT32....... 0.177s (2820513/s) 0.150s (3342618) Read binary INT128...... 0.895s (11173/s) 0.857s (11673) Clone null-object....... 0.228s (1313869/s) 0.177s (1691176) Clone object............ 0.429s (699153/s) 0.369s (812641) Compile................. 1.080s (22352 lines/s) 0.893s (27022) Compile & Exec.......... 0.904s (665265 lines/s) 0.738s (814537) GC...................... 0.587s 0.578s Insert in mapping....... 0.443s (1128668/s) 0.446s (1121076) Insert in multiset...... 0.880s (568182/s) 0.777s (643777) Matrix multiplication... 0.410s 0.402s Loops Nested (local).... 0.332s (50561473 iters/s) 0.487s (34473732) Loops Nested (global)... 0.528s (31788409 iters/s) 0.723s (23209587) Loops Recursed.......... 1.383s (758464 iters/s) 0.504s (2078675) Note that icc function calls seems to be much faster (Loops Recursed), and that the speed is comparable even though the icc version is compiled without machine code. (Both are with 64-bit float and int.) Has anyone looked into how difficult it would be to get icc to use the machine code stuff?

10 36

Extending Autodocs ?
by Xavier Beaudouin 10 Feb '03

10 Feb '03

Hello, Since we are speaking about autodocs, I've got a clue : Is there any way to extend it ? Eg adding autodoc for other things like tag / containers / entities / modules for example Caudium or Roxen ? Pike autodocs is good for code, but we (The Caudium Group) wishes to use it to autodocs as well the others part of Caudium/Camas project using same tools for documentation. Is there any way to add such "plug-ins" / "extension" to autodocs ? /Xavier

2 1

CPU_TIME_IS_THREAD_LOCAL
by Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 10 Feb '03

10 Feb '03

The use of #elif rather than #else in this code + #if CPU_TIME_IS_THREAD_LOCAL == YES + OBJ2THREAD(Pike_interpreter.thread_id)->auto_gc_time += last_gc_time; + #elif CPU_TIME_IS_THREAD_LOCAL == NO + auto_gc_time += last_gc_time; + #endif seems to suggest that setting CPU_TIME_IS_THREAD_LOCAL to something other than `YES' or `NO' is valid, and results in no gc time accounting at all. Is that correct? In that case I suspect grubba's fix for the no-treads case is incomplete. If not, why are there two tests here?

3 5

autodoc
by Peta, jo det �r jag ＠ Pike developers forum 10 Feb '03

10 Feb '03

Is there anyway to compile the documentation for only a module instead of the entire tree?

3 2

Pike threads benchmark
by Marek Habersack 09 Feb '03

09 Feb '03

Is there anything like that? I want to compare the performance of pike with various thread libraries and before writing any test, I'd like to learn whether anything like that exists. TIA, marek

1 0

F_NOTIFY
by Marcus Agehall (Tr�dl�s) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 09 Feb '03

09 Feb '03

What is the policy on implementing system-specific functions within Stdio.File? I've implemented support for the notify-functions within the Linux kernel which fits very well into the Stdio.File module but I'm not sure they belong there since they are Linux-specific.

2 1

config.log @ pikefarm
by Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS ＠ Pike developers forum 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

I'd like to see config.log in the pikefarm builds. Could someone please add it to the list of returned files? (I'm currently interested in the one in the core directory, but those in the modules might be interesting another time.)

2 2

Re: gcc/icc
by Mirar ＠ Pike developers forum 07 Feb '03

07 Feb '03

The correct solution is probably to load Gmp.bignum when it's needed. I tried to make such a solution, but I couldn't see how without adding overhead to the bignum creation callbacks.

2 1

API version tagging
by Marek Habersack 07 Feb '03

07 Feb '03

I was just wondering about one thing - whether it would be a good idea to tag the APIs in the documentation with the Pike version number where they appeared? That would enormously help in writing "portable" (as in cross-pike) scripts. marek

6 17

werror in C
by Marcus Agehall (Tr�dl�s) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 06 Feb '03

06 Feb '03

I need to print debug information from C-code and I want to be able to use the same syntax as in Pikes werror/write functions. How can I call werror/write from C?

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel