From: Alastair B. <nye...@li...> - 2006-02-04 17:29:18
|
Hello all, As many of you are aware, a popular topic of discussion on #lisp IRC is the x86 calling convention in SBCL. With the aim of making this topic unpopular, I present the following patch, which contains a small change to the implementation of the existing convention. It may-or-may-not be a win, performancewise. SBCL still built with this patch in place, with 14/14 contribs. I didn't bother to run the test suite. Feedback appreciated, particularly on style issues and gotchas that I may not have considered. --Alastair Bridgewater |
From: Alastair B. <nye...@li...> - 2006-02-04 17:49:16
Attachments:
sbcl-0.9.9-calling-convention-take1.patch
|
Oops, forgot the patch somehow. And http://paste.lisp.org/display/16396 contains a before-and-after disassembly of #'IDENTITY for comparison purposes. Alastair Bridgewater writes: > Hello all, > > As many of you are aware, a popular topic of discussion on #lisp IRC is > the x86 calling convention in SBCL. With the aim of making this topic > unpopular, I present the following patch, which contains a small change to > the implementation of the existing convention. It may-or-may-not be a win, > performancewise. SBCL still built with this patch in place, with 14/14 > contribs. I didn't bother to run the test suite. > > Feedback appreciated, particularly on style issues and gotchas that I may > not have considered. --Alastair Bridgewater |
From: Alastair B. <nye...@li...> - 2006-02-06 18:21:59
Attachments:
sbcl-0.9.9-calling-convention-take2.patch
|
Alastair Bridgewater writes: > Hello all, And here's the follow-up. This is the patch Juho Snellman blogged about recently. It includes a new file for the internals manual, but it should probably be looked over by someone with more texinfo-fu than I have. I'd like to thank jsnell, beach, ReaperSMS, and anyone I forgot to mention from #lisp for their help and encouragement in this project. --Alastair Bridgewater |