Hi Thomas, On 2024-02-26 10:02:55, Kautuk Consul wrote: > On 2024-02-23 15:04:56, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:29:23AM +0530, Kautuk Consul wrote: > > > > > difference (e.g. by running the command in a tight loop many times)? > > > Running a single loop many times will not expose much because that loop > > > (which is NOT within a Forth colon subroutine) will compile only once. > > > In my performance benchmarking with tb@ I have put 45 IF-THEN and > > > IF2-THEN2 control statements that will each compile once and reveal the > > > difference in compilation speeds. > > > > All of this is only for things compiled in interpretation mode anyway. > > Even how you get the source code in (read it from a slow flash rom in > > the best case!) dominates performance. > > > > You do not write things in Forth because it is perfect speed. Write > > things directly in machine code if you want that, or in another high- > > level language that emphasises optimal execution speed. The good things > > about Forth are rapid prototyping, immediate testing of all code you > > write, simple compact code, that kind of goodness. Ideal for (system) > > firmware! > > > > > > Segher > > Yes, but SLOF will be there on the product we sell to our customers. > Considering that there is a noticeable improvement in performance I just > thought maybe IBM management would be interested in it. On this note, what did you also try to understand the performance implications of my patch ? What improvements did you observer on your set up?
