Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps?

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think I'm just trying to get some sort of handle on how much the code
> has slowed down because of EQ.  Obviously, making EQ into a function
> (rather than an inline function) will have distorted things, but it
> seems the easiest way of measuring something at the moment.

I understand, but it's still going to be hard to figure out what the
result means.  Let's say you find that the new non-inlined EQ is 20%
slower than the old non-inlined EQ, what does it tell us about the
inlined versions?

It's quite possible that more than 50% of the time spent in the
non-inlined EQ is spent in the "function call overhead" (the jumps
themselves, the forced placement into specific registers, the need to
reify a condition code into a boolean stored in a register, the
impossibility to move code around the call to EQ because the compiler
doesn't know it's a pure function, ...)?


        Stefan