[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compilation of methods per class.
- To: jonl@lucid.com
- Subject: Re: Compilation of methods per class.
- From: Gregor Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 1990 16:28:25 PDT
- Cc: lange@CS.UCLA.EDU, rivieres@parc.xerox.com, faieta@parc.xerox.com, gerson@parc.xerox.com, brotsky@parc.xerox.com, bobrow@parc.xerox.com, kimber@parc.xerox.com, cutting@parc.xerox.com, robertso@parc.xerox.com, rodrigue@parc.xerox.com, rao@parc.xerox.com, haarslev@parc.xerox.com, cloops-arisia@arisia.Xerox.COM
- Fake-sender: gregor@parc.xerox.com
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Tue, 25 Sep 1990 10:55:09 PDT <9009251755.AA04026@caligula>
- Line-fold: NO
- Sender: Gregor Kiczales <gregor@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 1990 10:55:09 PDT
From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>
The circumstances you relate above are precisely the symptoms one would
expect when there is a breakdown in the assumptions underlying the PCL
generic-function caching technique.
Can you elaborate on this?
st port of PCL actually distributed from PARC is for
Franz Common Lisp 3.x on the SPARC. This port gets closer to the
architectural PCL than any other. The initial CLOS products of some
vendors are based on PCL, so in some sense those could be considered
really good ports of PCL, they are not available directly from PARC of
course.
The third is that there are still a number of bugs in PCL, and you may
have tripped across one of them.
In all of these cases, if you could send a short version of the
benchmark you are using we could say more about it, and give you an idea
which, if any, of these three issues is relevant.