pike_frames vs. clone_object/destruct. (7.5)

If it doesn't optimize common subexpressions well then there's a whole lot of trivial optimizations we can do; long access chains are very common in the pike core.

/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS

Previous text:

2002-12-17 22:53: Subject: pike_frames vs. clone_object/destruct. (7.5)

---

Mostly I'm lazy. I also thought that someone more involved in the GC-code should do that.

That might be possible. It's not the actual allocation that is most expensive, though, it's the initialization of the frames. Also, the accesses of prog, storage and similar members through pike_frame instead of a local variable generated extra memory operations, gcc did not really optimize that code all that well.

/ Per Hedbor ()