Re: Efficient bytecode design and interpretation

In article 01-05-082, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote:
>> [It's been discussed before. My suggestion is that unlike the design for
>> a physical architecture, there's little added cost to providing zillions
>> of operators, and the more each operator does the fewer times you go
>> through the interpreter loop, so a CISC design likely wins. You might
> also
>
> That's true up to a point -- there are two breakpoints proportional to
> L1 and L2 instruction cache sizes. That makes a huge difference, and can
> balance out the advantage of using very many opcodes.


Would you suggest some way(if it is feasible) to detect cache sizes
before full compilation (as a part of ./configure script)?
I regret not using JIT, as I want my interpreter easily portable for now.


        Greetings :-)
                Michal Gajda
                korek@icm.edu.pl
                *knowledge-hungry student*

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.