|Fat references vindicated firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-08)|
|Re: Fat references vindicated email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-08)|
|Re: Fat references vindicated firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon Harrop) (2010-01-10)|
|From:||Kaz Kylheku <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:56:00 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|Keywords:||storage, VM, performance|
|Posted-Date:||09 Jan 2010 16:14:33 EST|
On 2010-01-08, Jon Harrop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I just published some significant benchmark results:
I don't see fat references being vindicated.
The apparent winner of the benchmark is a C++ program running on a C++
implementation that presumably does not use fat references.
In the same blog entry above you do not argue about fat references,
but rather that HLVM comes close to C++ because, like the C++ program,
its inner loop computations are done with unboxed numbers. (Which is
Use of unboxed numeric values, and use of fat references, are orthogonal ideas.
Fat references merely make it /easy/ to implement unboxed numbers in
the face of a garbage collector that is ignorant of static type.
By using these fat references, you have built a ``four-lane highway'',
which paves the way for all your ``wide loads'' like double-precision
floats to travel anywhere that references can go. Any generic storage
location that can hold a reference also has enough space to hold an
You don't think benchmarks could be written which reveal performance
disadvantages in fat references?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.