change to struct foo {} fum declaration

>
> Hi,
> As part of my new role, I'm still trying to compile and understand all the building process... and testing with a 5.x produced I found that the tiny benchmarks for my vm and for the 5.x series was significantly worse than it's predecessors (4.x). The difference is significative (32 million send in 5.x/44 million send in 4.x). Trying several optimizations with John, he found that changing the declaration:
>
> struct foo { ... } fum;
>
> to
>
> static struct foo { ... } fum;
>
> speeds the execution, up to 48 million send,  which is very reasonable.
>
> So, I want to change the default definition of fum variable (to "static struct foo").
> What do you think?
>

>
> On 2 December 2010 23:30, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > As part of my new role, I'm still trying to compile and understand all the building process... and testing with a 5.x produced I found that the tiny benchmarks for my vm and for the 5.x series was significantly worse than it's predecessors (4.x). The difference is significative (32 million send in 5.x/44 million send in 4.x). Trying several optimizations with John, he found that changing the declaration:
> >
> > struct foo { ... } fum;
> >
> > to
> >
> > static struct foo { ... } fum;
> >
> > speeds the execution, up to 48 million send, ??which is very reasonable.
> >
> > So, I want to change the default definition of fum variable (to "static struct foo").
> > What do you think?

>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:12:20AM +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 2 December 2010 23:30, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> As part of my new role, I'm still trying to compile and understand all the building process... and testing with a 5.x produced I found that the tiny benchmarks for my vm and for the 5.x series was significantly worse than it's predecessors (4.x). The difference is significative (32 million send in 5.x/44 million send in 4.x). Trying several optimizations with John, he found that changing the declaration:
>>>
>>> struct foo { ... } fum;
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> static struct foo { ... } fum;
>>>
>>> speeds the execution, up to 48 million send, ??which is very reasonable.
>>>
>>> So, I want to change the default definition of fum variable (to "static struct foo").
>>> What do you think?
>
> This change sounds fine to me. Esteban, please feel free to make
> the update to VMMaker on SqueakSource (or I will be happy to do it
> on your behalf if you prefer, just let me know). Eliot will probably
> want to make the corresponding change in the oscog branch of VMMaker
> on SqueakSource.
>
>>>
>> +1
>> it could change depending on compiler.. some could compile 'static' to
>> be more slower than auto.
>> and that's what we should live with.
>
> If it turns out to be an issue on some platforms, we can alway change
> it later, maybe using a macro that would be set at compile time. So
> no reason not to make the change now.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave
>

> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:22:39AM +0100, Craig Latta wrote:
>>> It was "Fe Fi Fo(o) Fum" and building things (aka standing) on the
>>> shoulders of Giants for this minor change to all the VM work that
>>> came before.
>>
>>       Cute, but inexcusably horrid. :)  Reasonable names, please!
>>
>
> Would this be reasonable?
>
> static struct localVars { ... } localVars;
> struct localVars * interpVars =&localVars;
>
> (usqInt) interpVars->memoryLimit