Re^3: Are monks hibernating?

[syphilis]

I've investigated writing OO using Inline::C, but even then the wrapping process that mates C to XS to Perl just sucks away most of the performance gains. Writing XS directly can save some of that ...

I see (from time to time) vague allusions to the notion that XS can achieve something that Inline::C cannot - and the above quote is just one more example of that.

But then ... the allusions are so vague that I'm never sure that I've understood correctly :-)

Are you saying that there's some performance improvement to be had by writing XS directly (that can't be achieved with Inline::C) ? If so, could you (or anyone) give an example - more for my own edification, rather than for any other reason.

Given that Inline::C merely autogenerates an XS file, I find it hard to comprehend that the one has any advantage over the other (re performance).

I'll go back to sleep, now :-)

Cheers,
Rob

[BrowserUk]

At the very least, using Inline::C adds another layer of subroutine call around the c function. Depending upon what parameters the sub takes and whether you declare them using C types or XS types, the translations in and out can add conversions and casts that can be unnecessary.

Try comparing the post processed C with your original C function. It can be quite an eye opener.