From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changes in GC and in pure space (was: [Emacs-diffs] master 5d4dd55: Fix lifetime error in previous patch) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:51:06 +0300 Message-ID: <83o9006rol.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20190721193221.1964.53182@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190721193222.8C19E20BE2@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83blxmqfkq.fsf@gnu.org> <9568ca7d-854f-1971-bbe8-03ba8c64af42@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="109510"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: dancol@dancol.org, pipcet@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 04 16:51:25 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i5Wd2-000SMt-Ve for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:51:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34060 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i5Wd1-00039w-KB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i5Wcs-00039d-WC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47248) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i5Wcs-0003zz-Ab; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:51:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1952 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1i5Wcr-0001eB-9f; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:51:13 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:05:00 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:239832 Archived-At: > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:05:00 -0700 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Colascione , > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > In buffer.h, prefer inline functions to function-like macros > when either will do. This helps avoid confusion about how > many times an arg is evaluated. On my platform, this patch > improves performance of ‘make compile-always’ by 5.7%. How portable is "INLINE" (and if it's portable enough, why do we use a macro for it)? If some platforms don't support it, and these macros become non-inline functions, those platforms will be punished by this kind of changes. I FWIW, personally find the issue of confusion about macro argument evaluation to be a very weak one as justification to get rid of macros that needed approximately zero maintenance for many years. But that's me.