From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:29:33 +0300 Message-ID: <831tja21oi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv7r3rbh.fsf@gmail.com> <83iocn0x3x.fsf@gnu.org> <87sibr2b10.fsf@gmail.com> <83d22u278u.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3ra4xgu.fsf@gmail.com> <83618m230d.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv7q4vqz.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429810199 13601 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 17:29:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Oleh Krehel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 19:29:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKwZ-0007tT-GX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:29:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKwY-0001Pw-UB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:29:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47963) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKwV-0001Pp-0w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:29:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKwQ-0002hn-2l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:49245) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKwP-0002hd-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:29:34 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NN900200S19RP00@mtaout25.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:25:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NN900JA7SE2DP90@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:25:14 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87fv7q4vqz.fsf@gmail.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185826 Archived-At: > From: Oleh Krehel > Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:09:24 +0200 > > Are macros really the state-of-the-art for making accessors? It depends how deep in inner loops they are called. If they are deep enough, then either macros or inline functions are used. We actually use both, with some fine-tuning (see lisp.h), because we want Emacs to be reasonably fast even in an unoptimized build, where inline functions are not inlined. (Most core developers run the development version built without optimizations, since optimized code is hard to debug.) Accessor functions that are not speed-critical can be simple functions.