Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #782
| Path | csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end |
|---|---|
| From | n.oje.bar@gmail.com |
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: basic question about cps |
| Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:27:46 -0800 (PST) |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Lines | 30 |
| Sender | johnl@iecc.com |
| Approved | comp.compilers@iecc.com |
| Message-ID | <12-11-011@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <12-11-004@comp.compilers> <12-11-010@comp.compilers> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | news.iecc.com |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
| X-Trace | leila.iecc.com 1353524683 82435 64.57.183.58 (21 Nov 2012 19:04:43 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@iecc.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:04:43 +0000 (UTC) |
| Keywords | analysis, administrivia |
| Posted-Date | 21 Nov 2012 14:04:43 EST |
| X-submission-address | compilers@iecc.com |
| X-moderator-address | compilers-request@iecc.com |
| X-FAQ-and-archives | http://compilers.iecc.com |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.compilers:782 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:13:52 PM UTC, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > It seems to me that if one performs the cps transformation one is left > > with many 'computed' calls (that is call to variables holding > > procedure values, namely, the continuation). > > Yes. Every additional "computed call" (aka indirect call) corresponds > to a "return" in the non-CPS version of the code. > > > It seems that compiling such 'computed' calls would be much slower > > than compiling 'direct' calls to known procedures. > > That's the wrong comparison: the non-CPS version wouldn't see direct > calls there, but would see `return's instead. > Also, you're talking about "compiling" being "slower": are you really > concerned about the speed of compilation, or the speed of the > generated code? > The performance of "return" versus "indirect call" depends on many > factors, but it's probably important to try and make sure that the > "return-like indirect calls" are compiled to code which the CPU > recognizes as "some sort of return", in order for the > branch-prediction to work better (CPUs keep an internal&hidden stack > to try and predict the destination of return instructions). Thanks very much for all your replies! Best regards, Nicolas
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
basic question about cps n.oje.bar@gmail.com - 2012-11-12 11:05 -0800
Re: basic question about cps torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-11-14 11:25 +0100
Re: basic question about cps Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-11-14 11:13 -0500
Re: basic question about cps n.oje.bar@gmail.com - 2012-11-21 09:27 -0800
csiph-web