[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "simplifications"
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: "simplifications" |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:39:33 +0100 |
On Nov 19, 2007 4:11 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> 1 - if you use defsubst* the byte-code will look good.
Nice. Thanks!
> 2 - you can use defstruct to get all that and more.
Yes. It's not my code; it it were, I would be using defstruct. I'm a
big Common Lisp fan.
> 3 - I don't think it's worth the trouble to make the byte-optimizer more
> complex for such little benefit. If you want to improve it, use the
> lexbind branch: it's a much saner starting point.
Isn't that branch supposed to be merged back someday?
> it doesn't account for the case where
> you do
> (defsubst cadr (debug-on-error) (car (cdr debug-on-error)))
> in which case the optimization is not semantics preserving"
And I'n not sure it should... I think I agree with David here: if
you're using defsubst to optimize, you should expect some gotchas.
Juanma
- "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications",
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Richard Stallman, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/20
- Re: "simplifications", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/21