From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] use tail pointer for LOOP Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:43 -0400 Message-ID: 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> <20100617051021.GA26623@tomas> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276807738 16422 80.91.229.12 (17 Jun 2010 20:48:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 17 22:48:56 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 1OPM18-0004dj-Mg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:48:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34386 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OPM17-0001Nh-Vx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60932 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OPM11-0001J2-Gs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPM10-0004Kd-BU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:47 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:53315) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPM10-0004KQ-9E; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:46 -0400 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5HKmhgV014448; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:43 -0400 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 11FB4B4508; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:48:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20100617051021.GA26623@tomas> (tomas@tuxteam.de's message of "Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:10:21 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3559=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:126103 Archived-At: > 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. That's really not surprising: count the number of function calls and you'll see that the nreverse way is likely to win every time, simply because it suffers about half as much from the interpretation overhead. Stefan