This paper compares the implementation of direct function calls in SPUR Lisp with the more traditional indirect call implementations found in Maclisp, Franz Lisp, Spice Lisp, Zecalisp, etc. We examine the performance of direct and indirect function calls on the VAX, MC68020, and SPUR architectures. For the SPUR architecture, single indirection slows applications by 3-4%, and double indirection slows applications by 6-8%. The performance benefits of direct function calls are smaller for the VAX and MC68020 architectures. Implementing direct function calls requires maintaining backpointers from each function to all the functions that call it. The additional memory allocated for backpointers ranges from 10-50% of the memory allocated for functions. Maintaining backpointers increases the time to load functions by 10-15%. Redefining a function in a direct call implementation adds up to 50% to the time needed in an implementation with indirect function calls.
Title
Direct Function Calls in Lisp
Published
1988-02-17
Full Collection Name
Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences Technical Reports
Other Identifiers
CSD-88-403
Type
Text
Extent
13 p
Archive
The Engineering Library
Usage Statement
Researchers may make free and open use of the UC Berkeley Library’s digitized public domain materials. However, some materials in our online collections may be protected by U.S. copyright law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Use or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by fair use (Title 17, U.S.C. § 107) requires permission from the copyright owners. The use or reproduction of some materials may also be restricted by terms of University of California gift or purchase agreements, privacy and publicity rights, or trademark law. Responsibility for determining rights status and permissibility of any use or reproduction rests exclusively with the researcher. To learn more or make inquiries, please see our permissions policies (https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/permissions-policies).
