[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# [jwatkins@futurepress.com: Re: Server Improvement]

- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:56:54 -0600
- From:

    ------- Start of forwarded message -------
    Return-Path: moo-cows-errors@parc.xerox.com
    X-Intended-For: <moo-cows@parc.xerox.com>
    Subject: Re: Server Improvement
    Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:51:51 PST
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0 x52, February 26, 1997
    From: Jeff Watkins <jwatkins@futurepress.com>
    To: "Another MOO-Cows" <moo-cows@parc.xerox.com>
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Sender: MOO-Cows-Errors@parc.xerox.com
    Precedence: bulk

    Robert Jay Brown wrote:
    >A function call with a signature of void (*func)(void) passes no
    >parameters, and returns no results.  Consequently, it is quite fast,
    >and generates a single subroutine call instruction, with no stack
    >pushing or popping other than the return address itself.  The overhead
    >here is a single memory cycle for call, and another single memory
    >cycle for returning.

    Sorry, but even a void function must push local variables onto the stack.
    On almost every processor family I've ever written assembly for (five and
    growing) a jump table (such as might be used in a switch statement) is
    better than a subroutine.

    - --
    Jeff Watkins
    http://www.FuturePress.com/People/jwatkins/
    mailto:jwatkins@FuturePress.com
    ------- End of forwarded message -------

- Prev: [junky@photocraftlab.com: Re: MOO -> e-mail]
- Next: [kbobrow@parc.xerox.com: Re: dictionary server?]
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index