From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,6f568a2e6507575 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: f891f,6f568a2e6507575 X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,6f568a2e6507575 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-25 02:09:14 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!194.25.134.62!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.kvaerner.com!news@kvaerner.com From: "Tarjei T. Jensen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Thoughts and Opinions or something like that Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:06:19 +0200 Organization: Kvaerner Group IT Message-ID: <9c642e$of323@news.kvaerner.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.209.159.44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2120.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:6913 comp.lang.functional:5279 comp.lang.misc:1124 Date: 2001-04-25T11:06:19+02:00 List-Id: chris.danx wrote >The real problem is the VM, so i'm looking for peoples thoughts on this. What >concepts would you have found useful, and what you'd rule out. I would think that a VM would have to be as high level as possible in order to be efficient. My impression is that there is a growing disparity between memory and CPU speeds. In order to be efficient it is important to reduce memory fetches. The VM decoding code should stay in the cache and therefore be fast. As far as instructions are concerned I always fancied deviding branch instructions into two groups: Those who branch most of the time and those who seldom branch. The idea was that one could skimp on branch prediction on the CPU. For a while or for loop one would use the former type of instructions. Since I have heard of nobody who have done this I assume that the idea is not particularly good. Greetings,