From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On elisp running native Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:20:09 +0000 Message-ID: <87eexrttxi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="63519"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 29 01:24:00 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 1iaU4l-000GOJ-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 01:23:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54168 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iaU4j-0002Le-9S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 19:23:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42115) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iaU1J-0001Wk-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 19:20:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iaU1G-0004MA-UV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 19:20:24 -0500 Original-Received: from 195-159-176-226.customer.powertech.no ([195.159.176.226]:55998 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iaU1F-0004HA-2B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 19:20:21 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iaU1A-000CXT-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 01:20:16 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:KvYpCVVTgKLTQapflCWbHCPgfqY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:242851 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> [ I wasn't able to follow all the explanations at >>> http://akrl.sdf.org/gccemacs.html, such as the one around "function >>> frames", with which I'm not familiar. Are these like activation >>> frames? ] >> Yes I think we both mean the same. In this case basically where we store >> automatic variables and data related to the single activated function. > > OK, thanks. I think "activation frame" is the standard term (of which > there can be several on the stack at the same time in case of recursion). > >>> - How did you get there? I see some "we" in the web page, which makes >>> it sound like you weren't completely alone. >> Sorry for that I'm not much into using 'I'. > > That's OK, but I see you tried to use it as a clever ploy to dodge the > initial question: how did you get there? > >>> - Have you tried to use the compiler as benchmark (i.e. how much faster >>> can Emacs compile (either byte-compile or native-compile)) if the >>> compiler code is native-compiled (since it's all using >>> lexical-binding already)? >> I use the compiler native compiled but because of the previous point I >> think is hard to measure the difference. > > How 'bout measuring the time to byte-compile a given set of files, then: > first using the byte-compiled compiler and then using the > native-compiled compiler (where "compiler" here means at least cconv.el, > byte-opt.el, bytecomp.el, and macroexp.el)? > > BTW, I think developing a good set of Elisp benchmarks is useful > independently from this, so I'd encourage you to submit your benchmarks > as a new GNU ELPA package (we could also incorporate it into Emacs > itself, but I think we'll want to use it to compare performance between > diverse Emacsen, so a separate package makes more sense). > > Maybe someone from the Gnus side will want to submit more benchmarks > (such as one that manipulates "sets/ranges or article numbers"). Maybe so!