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: Windows 64 port Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:22:40 +0200 Message-ID: <83ty27bbmn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20120219211800.0000558f@unknown> <834numv7js.fsf@gnu.org> <83ty2ltep0.fsf@gnu.org> <4F4EEBC2.5070704@cs.ucla.edu> <4F4F3A1A.4020808@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1330680077 29456 80.91.229.3 (2 Mar 2012 09:21:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: fabrice.popineau@supelec.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ajmr@ilovetortilladepatatas.com To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 02 10:21:14 2012 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 1S3Ofp-0003QL-Jb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:21:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57013 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3Ofo-0006Pp-V9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56175) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3Ofi-0006PP-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3Ofc-00032j-GA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:21:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:58859) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3Ofc-00032N-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:21:00 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M09009002FULO00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:20:34 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.20.191]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M09008B43A6RNU0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:20:32 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <4F4F3A1A.4020808@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:148873 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:58:02 -0800 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: Eli Zaretskii , ajmr@ilovetortilladepatatas.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Here is a more-detailed review of the latest patch you sent. > > > > > - int i = 0, aligned = (intptr_t) ABLOCKS_BUSY (abase); > > > + int i = 0, aligned = (ABLOCKS_BUSY (abase) != NULL); > > > > Not needed for Windows 64. The change slows the code down a bit, and > > > > > > Prove it. > > I compiled it both ways (x86-64 GCC 4.6.2), and the "!= NULL" version > has an extra "cmpl" instruction, so it is indeed a bit fatter. Was that an optimized compile or an unoptimized one? If the latter, the results have no practical effect on the speed of the production binary; if the former, I'm not sure you can reliably tell which instruction belongs to which source line, especially since that code is in a function that is inlined by GCC when you compile with optimizations. In any case, even if your claim _is_ true (and I very much doubt that), it is beyond ridiculous to say that a single extra clock cycle in a program such as Emacs should be seriously considered as an important factor to weigh against code cleanness and maintainability.