Re: expansion, memoization, and evaluation...

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> In the on-line (interpreter) case the types are retrieved from the
>> arguments and the rewrite rules depend on knowing the bindings of
>> variables in the source.  Yes, this is equivalent to what the current
>> goops source does, although the only optimization which is done
>> currently is supplying a "next-method" efficiently.
>
> You may have already said this, but if the method is called later with
> "different types", then does it have to notice that and recompute?

No, that copy of the compiled code will never be called with anything
but the types it's compiled for.

> Any chance some alternate optimization might be easier when you're
> doing offline compilation?  Unfortunately I don't know enough about
> what goops is already doing to comment very concretely yet, but I
> can imagine that you might be able to get similar performance with
> an alternate approach when you can control the object code you're
> emitting.

Hmm... What do you mean by "control the object code"?  Surely, there
is nothing about what I've said about goops which prevents the
optimizations in the "alternate approach" from being done?  Maybe
there's a misunderstanding here: Goops gives source back to the
compiler.  The compiler then can continue to do whatever optimizations
it chooses to, and also has full control over the object code it's
emitting.

Best regards,
Mikael