Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 in a web browser From: "Colin Adams" <colinpauladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:09:10 +0000 |
On 26/03/2008, James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > just wondering; how would someone who downloads firefox source then > compile .... u can't expect people to depend on a pre-compiled binary, > on the other hand I can't see mozilla follks wanting to add an Eiffel > compile step as a dependency. making apologies now for my Eiffel > ignorance ;) I was thinking of a Firefox extension. People do use these - I for one (and are therefore depending upon a pre-compiled binary). > and to make my question a bit more XSLT related .... do u have any > formal XSLT performance benchmarks for gestalt ? Not formal. I think it would be a good idea for someone to set up a suite of XSLT 2.0 performance benchmarks. Informally, Gestalt 1.0.x has quadratic behaviour in the size of the source documents (approx.). I have spent the last 3 weekends profiling (I finally decided this was more important than regular expression compatibility), getting nowhere (I has assumed all along that somewhere I had a poor algorithm, but I could find no trace of it), until Monday night, when I switched from profiling the Eiffel code to profiling the generated C code, using gprof. Immediately it was apparent that nearly all the execution time was due to the garbage collector. So I have now started to reduce the number of objects allocated. The first effort halved the runtime, so that looks promising. It will take several weeks of effort though, as I have to inspect all the code, and there's a lot of it!
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 in a web browser, James Fuller | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 in a web browser, bryan rasmussen |
Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 in a web browser, James Fuller | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 2.0 in a web browser, bryan rasmussen |
Month |