From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 17:04:15 +0200 Message-ID: <83k0ezyb68.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87lezfzy5h.fsf@gnus.org> <83sftnyilw.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtjvyd4t.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30565"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 16 16:06:43 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n977D-0007kF-In for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 16:06:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50040 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n977C-00014r-4E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:06:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39174) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9752-00080b-Hr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:04:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=48908 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9751-0005JS-SB; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:04:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=VMZmJL18HFhhS07sf7xDF55VST+ej/1ZUYLK+JDv4Rc=; b=WQlrZyyzWjw6 6eVJyC6HF4QdJOeR38+GXmEmtknkZEqUGZjY3+1BywqCKCYqmKXsPubRwPPHHK9jKl3fe5/IED4cB Dt5Z0TcWv16hY4TTil+DpbBkiIMhytPIxCWrlF3jDJl/iIhELT/COO1o+W8hKXw45B1ORAI8poQ70 q5XvfXQS/y3EVZ4flHlkDLFfnN4xSaYxzhOAD6Ia3+fMXfZUZo/Dx+R1w7/rMPpAeQklOhXdpdSgd Q+i3Sd4VooUvMrln64s9N8n8EZ0eRzOqxD+2NGE9nT+s2ixrhQBcaQxV6WmFsw2yzmI4pfd91k6Uy aZISCx9CESgoK1wmTcwB0w==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2204 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9751-0003dy-Ss; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 10:04:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:45:28 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284826 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:45:28 +0000 > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > Are you saying that the measured slowdown is specific to the > > byte-compiler, and will not affect other uses of Lisp, or affect them > > much less heavily? > > Yes. The byte compile, as expected, is more slowed down than other > software. On a quick measurement of compiling comp.el, I found a > slowdown of around 12% That seems to be inconsistent with the 17% slowdown compiling the *.el files that Lars measured. > > Because the byte-compiler is just another Lisp program, it doesn't in > > general do anything an arbitrary Lisp program won't do. > > It does. It runs with symbols with position activated, so any operation > involving an EQ which doesn't match is going to be significantly slower. But EQ is not specific to the byte-compiler, is it? > > Can you show a profile where this could be seen quantitatively? > > I'm not sure I understand. The slowdown in the byte compiler is > distributed throughout the Emacs C Code. It doesn't happen at any > particular isolated place. I thought the slowdown was in Lisp somewhere. If it's in EQ, I'm not sure I understand how come the byte-compiler's slowdown is so much more significant than in other Lisp code.