From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] use tail pointer for LOOP Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:10:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20100617051021.GA26623@tomas> References: <4C018D79.7040409@censorshipresearch.org> <4C018FD3.1020305@censorshipresearch.org> <4C01AA28.6030002@censorshipresearch.org> <9718A5AD-7A74-470B-A32D-DA14266506A3@raeburn.org> <4C01B609.6070303@censorshipresearch.org> <20100616174420.GA2847@tomas> <87fx0msv9z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276751417 3868 80.91.229.12 (17 Jun 2010 05:10:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 17 07:10:15 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OP7Mi-0004QP-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:10:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47106 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OP7Mh-00030b-N9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:10:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41288 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OP7MY-0002yQ-L1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:10:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OP7MX-0001PZ-F4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:10:02 -0400 Original-Received: from alextrapp1.equinoxe.de ([217.22.192.104]:37887 helo=www.elogos.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OP7MU-0001Nx-B3; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:09:58 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 611DC9004D; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:10:21 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fx0msv9z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:126059 Archived-At: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:10:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > tomas@tuxteam.de writes: [...] > > This has intrigued me for quite a while. > > (Maybe the tail pointer version could be done more elegantly: I'd be > > delighted to be taught more :) [...] > Did you byte-compile? Thanks, David. Good point. That's the outcome: Without byte compilation: Reverse: (2.165832 5 0.7267649999999994) Tail pointer: (2.795332 4 0.8909630000000011) Byte compiling copy1, copy2 (and runtwo, for good measure, but I wouldn't expect that to matter): Reverse: (1.006534 3 0.682734) Tail pointer: (1.305476 4 0.9159619999999986) Still, reversing seems to be worth it (by some 30 percent). Unless we find some way to streamline the tail pointer better. Regards - -- tom=C3=A1s -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFMGa49Bcgs9XrR2kYRAu/DAJwK+aD1fiV3nISL212UR8JqFTaokwCdEt/G D64HURkJwg2EduxzFNvfY9g=3D =3DwSpa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----