[#16116] RCRchive shutting down — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi everyone --

22 messages 2008/04/03
[#16119] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

This is quite sad news, I feel that a mailing list does not offer all

[#16121] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16122] Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16123] issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16124] Re: issue tracking (Re: [ANN] RCRchive shutting down) — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#16128] RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

60 messages 2008/04/03
[#16139] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/03

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:41PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#16143] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/04/03

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Paul Brannan wrote:

[#16146] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/03

Hi,

[#16147] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/04/03

[#16149] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:

[#16155] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Yemi I. D. Bedu" <yemi@...> 2008/04/03

Hello,

[#16158] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/03

Yemi I. D. Bedu wrote:

[#16175] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@...> 2008/04/04

On 4 Apr 2008, at 00:23, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#16194] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Chris Cummer <chris@...> 2008/04/04

On 4-Apr-08, at 3:05 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

[#16195] Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2008/04/04

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Chris Cummer <chris@postal-code.com> wrote:

[#16240] syntax request — "ry dahl" <ry@...>

Often times when one has many long arguments and orders them like this

42 messages 2008/04/06
[#16263] Re: syntax request — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...> 2008/04/07

[#16266] Re: syntax request — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Bill Kelly wrote:

[#16282] Re: syntax request — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/08

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0900, David A. Black wrote:

[#16290] Could someone confirm signal handling is broken on OSX? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I've raised this before, but no one replied. I'd like to double check

12 messages 2008/04/08

[#16359] design meeting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>

Hi,

18 messages 2008/04/12

[#16397] Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>

Folks,

16 messages 2008/04/15

[#16482] Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi

32 messages 2008/04/22
[#16483] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/04/22

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:29AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:

[#16484] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:

[#16487] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16488] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2008/04/22

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

[#16490] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/22

Hi --

[#16501] Re: Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — ts <decoux@...> 2008/04/23

Robert Dober wrote:

[#16507] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

50 messages 2008/04/23
[#16511] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16512] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16525] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16527] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/23

Hi --

[#16534] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...> 2008/04/23

David A. Black wrote:

[#16546] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16552] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@...> 2008/04/24

Or changing #send to private...or (insert progressive but code

[#16564] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/04/24

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

[#16567] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/04/24

Hi --

[#16570] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/04/24

Hi,

[#16531] Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...> 2008/04/23

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:

Re: [PATCH] SPARC architecture optimizations

From: Prashant Srinivasan <Prashant.Srinivasan@...>
Date: 2008-04-23 20:23:03 UTC
List: ruby-core #16530
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Prashant Srinivasan wrote:
>> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>> Prashant Srinivasan wrote:
>>>> Hello Matz,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the response.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is indeed okay to remove that particular invocation to 
>>>> FLUSH_REGISTER_WINDOWS, since it is redundant.  Another call to 
>>>> FLUSH_REGISTER_WINDOWS is made in rb_thread_save_context as a part 
>>>> of THREAD_SAVE_CONTEXT.
>>>> ie., in rb_thread_save_context(), the following exists.
>>>
>>> So has this been included? I saw some perf numbers relating to this 
>>> and the gains were pretty substantial.
>>
>> Hey Charlie,
>> The above mentioned change has not made it in . . . but another flush 
>> call(the one in EXEC_TAG) has been removed.  It'll be really cool if 
>> someone can commit this  change - the call to flush windows here is 
>> unnecessary - and it's quite an expensive call to have redundant 
>> invocations.
>
> Maybe if you could quantify expensive with some before/after numbers?
>

Here is data obtained from running the Computer language shootout tests 
on a V490 running OpenSolaris.  A couple of tests are home grown.   
We're seeing between 4.88% - 12.74% increase in performance(ie., a 
decrease in latency) with Ruby patched with the flush patch I sent on 
this thread.

TraverseXmlDom 4.88%
SpectralNorm 6.18%
BinaryTrees 6.59%
ParseXmlData 4.41%
Nsievebits 7.44%
Nsieve 1.46%
Fasta 8.11%
Recursive 7.62%
PartialSums 6.44%
Nbody 6.59%
SumCol 12.74%
Fannkuch 7.12%


Cheers,
 -ps

> - Charlie
>


-- 
Prashant Srinivasan
F/OSS Enthusiast
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
http://blogs.sun.com/prashant
GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x82FBDE5A


In This Thread