There is also a difference between:
[self atEnd ifTrue: [^nil].
self next.
true] whileTrue.
and:
[self atEnd ifTrue: [^nil]
self next] repeat.
Warning: it's quite easy to add Compiler inlining rules, a bit tougher
to add corresponding Decompiler tricks.
2009/11/13 Marcus Denker <denker@acm.org>:
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:51 AM, C��drick B��ler wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed quite a difference between the two method who "looks" the same to me. Is it normal ?
>>
>
> Normal. to:do: is lnlined (compiled as jumps in the bytecode), whereas timesRepeat: is a message
> send with a closure activation.
>
> �� �� �� ��Marcus
>
> fun is the difference between:
>
> �� �� �� ��(1 to : 10000) do:
> and
> �� �� �� ��1 to: 10000 do:
>
> one is compiled to jumps, the other not and in addition creates a temp collection.
>
> �� �� �� ��Marcus
>
>
>
>> I use a rc image (haven't tested in squeak). And it's the same on windows and linux.
>>
>> count := 0.
>> [1 to: 10000000 do: [:i | count :=count + 1]] timeToRun." 677"
>> count := 0.
>> [10000000 timesRepeat: [count := count + 1]] timeToRun" 2571"
>>
>> If not normal, I'll open a issue.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> C��drick
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project