From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31104 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2003 04:26:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31090 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 04:26:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO octopussy.utanet.at) (213.90.36.45) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 04:26:48 -0000 Received: from patricia.utanet.at ([213.90.36.8]) by octopussy.utanet.at with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ri01-0003yA-00 for guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:52:57 +0200 Received: from dsl-149-179.utaonline.at ([62.218.149.179] helo=rotty-ipv4.yi.org) by patricia.utanet.at with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ri00-0006hL-00 for guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:52:56 +0200 Received: from alice.rhinosaur.lan ([192.168.1.3] ident=mail) by rotty-ipv4.yi.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19ri0n-0001MK-00 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:53:45 +0200 Received: from andy by alice.rhinosaur.lan with local (Exim 4.22) id 19ri0n-0000NV-0R for guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:53:45 +0200 To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Speedups for GTK2 bindings? References: <87r83hea6e.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> <20030820135934.GB4770@lark> <87ekzgnrmd.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> From: Andreas Rottmann Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87ekzgnrmd.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> (Andreas Rottmann's message of "Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:52:42 +0200") Message-ID: <878ypg8fvb.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 Andreas Rottmann writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Andreas Rottmann wrote: >> >>> I'll probably try what speedups result of re-implementing the >>> re-export-bindings and functions->methods-public helpers in C. >> >> Great! A lot of that code is (as you know) slow slow slow slow slow, and >> since I don't fire up the gtk side of things too often, I don't really >> see it very much. >> > It seems that the speed gains from doing the generics stuff from C > (I've made up a version that is basically the scheme code translated > to the Guile C API) are minimal at best. I think that the add-method > invocation is the slow call. I've yet to profile the code to see what > causes it to run so slow. > I've now checked in most of my non-GError related changes to guile-gobject. This includes creating the generic functions immediatly (as suggested by Andy Wingo), not in a seperate pass, which is cleaner IMO and also reduces the binding load time by about 10% on my machine (10 seconds -> 9 seconds -- YMMV, I'd like to get this number verified...) Regards, Andy -- Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 Python is executable pseudocode, Perl is executable line-noise.