I'd like to see your tests. It's hard to see how your perl one could be faster, unless it is leaving out significant pieces of functionality. | [reply] |
ok, the test script is right there in the package (t/test.pl, t/test.html). I updated some minutes ago it because the version that was in the package wasn't runnable.
ok, it's not a complete test of all functionalities, but you can have a look at it and maybe tell me what I'm missing.
update: i updated the test.pl script again, so now everybody should see quickly what it is doing. before it was just a big mess...
update2: here is the test script with additional testing of H::T::JIT: http://www.tinita.de/projects/perl/modules/HTC_test_pl.txt
when I run it HTC is more than 3 times faster than H::T::JIT, so I *must* be doing something wrong...
| [reply]
[d/l] |
I finally had a chance to test this myself. On my system, H::T::C is about 2.5 times faster than H::T::JIT, which is about 6 times faster than normal H::T. That's an impressive result. I did notice though that the output is not identical. It looks like your loop context vars are off by 1, and maybe some interpolation is not quite the same.
I wonder if any of the speed difference is a result of feature differences. As you mentioned, they are not identical in features. Regardless, I think this shows that compiling to perl opcodes is a good approach and that either Inline::C is just not fast enough or the C code generated by H::T::JIT could be optimized more.
| [reply] |