From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14137 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2017 01:40:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 41198 Received: (qmail 25590 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2017 01:40:14 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from aok120.rev.netart.pl by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(85.128.245.120):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 3.275014 secs); 02 Jun 2017 01:40:14 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: psprint@zdharma.org X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at zdharma.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV (21) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 03:40:01 +0200 From: Sebastian Gniazdowski To: Bart Schaefer , zsh workers Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <170601133542.ZM1585@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <170528124337.ZM9444@torch.brasslantern.com> <170530224728.ZM25709@torch.brasslantern.com> <170601133542.ZM1585@torch.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: mikachu/badarrays (Re: Valgrind testing, ideas) X-Mailer: Airmail (231) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 1 czerwca 2017 at 22:35:55, Bart Schaefer (schaefer@brasslantern.com) wrote: > I said it mostly passes tests. There's still something screwy about > its interaction with the newer optimizations to re-use array storage > when growing/shrinking an array, which for purposes of the tests is > invoked whenever the $match array is changed by the pattern code; so > all the tests that require $match are failing. Ah ok, mostly passes tests. I think the optimizations should agree with caching of arrlen(), the new array size is computed as before (the way it is computed didn't change), and cached array len can be stored. I'm curious how the screen saver zmorpho would perform, as far as I remember it was ~360s with no optimizations, 40s with them, 25s with hashes used to store data under integer indices. I would test cached arrlen(), would it be 30, 20, 10 seconds, that's a puzzle, arrlen() was top function in callgrind run. Is there code available somewhere? -- Sebastian Gniazdowski psprint /at/ zdharma.org