I wonder what it takes to trigger that optimization.
davido:~/scripts$ perlbrew exec --with perl-5.10.1 perl mytest.pl Perl version: 5.010001 Rate retn bare retn 6849315/s -- -8% bare 7462687/s 9% -- (25000000, 25000000) davido:~/scripts$ perlbrew exec --with perl-5.28.0 perl mytest.pl Perl version: 5.028000 Rate bare retn bare 10729614/s -- -3% retn 11013216/s 3% -- (25000000, 25000000)
I mean I do see a difference, but other optimizations between Perl 5.10 and Perl 5.28 seem to be far more significant (probably the integer optimization).
Here is the sample code:
use strict; use warnings; use Benchmark qw(cmpthese); my $x; my $y; sub bare { ++$x; $x } sub retn { ++$y; return $y } print "Perl version: $]\n\n"; cmpthese(25_000_000, { bare => sub {my $t = bare()}, retn => sub {my $t = retn()}, }); print "\n($x, $y)\n";
The reason for the double sub call is to assure that the return value is being obtained, and not discarded due to context. So we do have the double-call overhead, but it's the same overhead for both sides of the test.
Anyway, where there had been a 9% difference in favor of bare returns in 5.10, there's now a statistically insignificant 3% difference that seems to go either direction.
Dave
In reply to Re^4: Proxying (almost) all methods in a class for mass memoization
by davido
in thread Proxying (almost) all methods in a class for mass memoization
by Tommy
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |