[#5322] O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

I just did some benchmarks on push, pop, shift, and unshift

24 messages 2005/07/01
[#5338] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/02

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5348] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/02

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5357] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5359] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5361] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2005/07/03

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Eric Mahurin wrote:

[#5362] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/03

--- Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

[#5365] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5367] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/07/04

--- Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#5368] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/07/04

Hi,

[#5372] Re: O(1) performance for insertions/deletions at the front of an Array/String — Florian Gro<florgro@...> 2005/07/04

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#5420] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...>

Sydney, an experimental ruby interpreter, has been released!

15 messages 2005/07/11
[#5424] Re: [ANN] Sydney Developer Preview 1 released — Evan Webb <evanwebb@...> 2005/07/12

Thanks everyone for the feedback so far!

Re: [PATCH] 1.8.3 p1 segfault in array.c- bccwin32 - bcc5.5 (free) compiler bug

From: "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Date: 2005-07-04 08:03:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #5370
Hi.

>I'll let Ocean, or someone else, decide on that when they've noticed
>the speed increase after removing their overheads.

Umm, this is difficult to answer...

Honestly, I want Borland to fix this. I found bug tracking system on their site,
so I think this is the place for letting them know the problem.
(http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx)

But probably they won't fix this.... because another two years old inline bug report
is still unfixed. http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=4784

Anyway, we did some workaround already, so there is no reason not to do another
workaround.

  http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ruby/parse.y.diff?r1=1.365;r2=1.366

This is needed because ...

  #include <stdio.h>

  #pragma option -Od /* in ruby code, this is not needed */

  struct hoge
  {
      unsigned __int64 value; /* must be in struct */
  };

  int main()
  {
      struct hoge a;

      struct hoge *p = &a; /* access through the pointer */

      p->value >>= 1; /* SEGV */ /* won't SEGV if p->value = p->value >> 1 */

      return 0;
  }

But I don't like workaround, even on above bug, I propsed not to use __int64 totally.
So I want to recommend not to use inline.

  make OPTFLAGS="-v- -vi- -O2"

# bcc32 port maintainer KONISHI Hiromasa might have a different thought.



In This Thread