From 5ad63c794d4b2433962b79461138d7b98f529112 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Martin Odersky Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:51:44 +0100 Subject: Fix more types, add link --- tests/bench/transactional/results.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'tests/bench') diff --git a/tests/bench/transactional/results.md b/tests/bench/transactional/results.md index 0766432c3..fa243a8e2 100644 --- a/tests/bench/transactional/results.md +++ b/tests/bench/transactional/results.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Three alternatives: 1. No implicit shortcuts 2. Implicit shortcuts only for possible targets of megamorphic dispatch - (`specializeMonoTargets` set to false) + (`specializeMonoTargets` in [ShortcutImplicits.scala](../../../compiler/src/dotty/tools/dotc/transform/ShortcutImplicits.scala) set to false) 3. Implicit shortcuts for all methods returning implicit function types (`specializeMonoTargets` set to true) @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Two benchmarks: In the fully monomorphic benchmark, specializing only megamorphic targets has the same performance as -not spezializing at all (not surprising, since there +not specializing at all (not surprising, since there are no megamorphic targets). Specializing everything incurs about a 14% performance hit (maybe due to the extra code generated; it's hard to pin down what it is). @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ Note: We compute relative performance differences by comparing the second-best test runs of each series with each other. In the megamorphic benchmark, it's the other way round. -Specializing only megamorphic callsites leads to a performance +Specializing only megamorphic call-sites leads to a performance improvement of about 36% compared to no specialization. Specializing everything leads to another 37% improvement (85% total compared to no specialization). I think we need larger benchmarks to decide whether we should -specicialize monomorphic call-targets or not. +specialize monomorphic call-targets or not. ### Comparing with the Reader Monad -- cgit v1.2.3