3 added 9 characters in body
source | link

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

    CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot, which ruins cache locality, hence performance.
  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

    CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

Both conspire to making code compiled by CPS-based compilationtransform comparatively slow.

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

Both conspire to making CPS-based compilation comparatively slow.

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot, which ruins cache locality, hence performance.
  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

Both conspire to making code compiled by CPS-transform comparatively slow.

2 added 45 characters in body
source | link

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

Both conspire to making CPS-based compilation comparatively slow.

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack.

Both conspire to making CPS-based compilation comparatively slow.

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack (which is faster to allocate and deallocate).

Both conspire to making CPS-based compilation comparatively slow.

1
source | link

I'm not a compiler expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, I hope that a real compiler expert will chime in. I was told that:

  • CPS transforms trash cache locality, as CPSed code tends to jump non-locally a lot.

  • CPS requires more expensive garbage collection than conventional compilation which can typically store a lot of stuff on the stack.

Both conspire to making CPS-based compilation comparatively slow.