From: Jeronimo P. <j_...@al...> - 2007-08-01 19:02:06
|
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:53:34PM +0200, Thomas F. Burdick wrote: > You really do not want to compile stuff like this with safety = 0. > You're asking for the world of broken arithmetic, pointer errors, and > all kinds of other crap; Even after heavy testing? (I used safety 3 while testing) I made sure it won't go past the array's limits, and checked that the three functions are really functions. I would like to know what other problems I could find here; I am particularly interested in very, very fast code (that has been heavily tested for correctness first). > set safety to 1, and learn how to work with > the compiler to produce the tight code you want, it's really not that > hard. I'll try to understand the optimization settings a bit more, then. As to the compiler, the SBCL manual points me to the CMUCL manual for optimization issues, and I have found that SBCL is already sort of far from CMUCL on some aspects (not related to this particular function, but I once tried block compilation directives, and SBCL complained that it didn't know them). Where else could I find information on how to get the compiler to optimize more? That's sure one thing I've been looking for! :-) Thanks a lot, J. |