Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 18:11 UTC)
Re: no constants please felix (04 Jan 2004 19:25 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 20:08 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 21:13 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 22:59 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 00:50 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:19 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 11:42 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 16:26 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 17:49 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 18:24 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 22:00 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 00:55 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:07 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Shiro Kawai (05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 16:35 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 17:54 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:05 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:12 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:17 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 17:40 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 02:15 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 03:10 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 04:06 UTC)

Re: no constants please Tom Lord 05 Jan 2004 01:31 UTC

    > From: Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org>

    >    Pika-style conventions do not make those presumptions:  there is a
    >    comprehensive abstraction barrier there between the Scheme value
    >    representations, the heap invariants, and the C code.

    >    The latter is far less restrictive on Scheme implementations.

    > Yes, and more overhead for accessing Scheme values from C.
    > It's a tradeoff.  We made it one way and you would make it
    > another.

To reiterate -- I'm not convinced, now that I've noted you require
GCPROtection of parameters in functions that may cause GC -- that
Pika-conventions actually have more overhead.

I don't see any really good way for us to prove it one way or the
other just now.   The number of loads and stores is about the same
with either approach.   Pika can get by registering fewer variables
for GC.   In some interpreters, Pika's incessent indirection can be
eliminated in the bulk of cases.

They are at least awefully close.  I wouldn't leap to the conclusion
that either is cheaper than the other.

-t