From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shrinking the C core Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:48:55 +0000 Message-ID: <87lee44w7c.fsf@localhost> References: <20230809094655.793FC18A4654@snark.thyrsus.com> <87jztzkgct.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87y1if8j8t.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <87y1ifi9fv.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87zg2uqdmv.fsf@localhost> <87edk3gbh3.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztvnuyb.fsf@localhost> <875y5bdutt.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87y1i6e1uh.fsf@localhost> <874jkub40o.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztqdw2l.fsf@localhost> <87msym9i4r.fsf@dataswamp.org> <877cpp914t.fsf@localhost> <835y59wmp1.fsf@gnu.org> <877cpp7b3f.fsf@localhost> <83zg2lunp2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23804"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ams@gnu.org, incal@dataswamp.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 21 10:49:18 2023 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 1qY0b8-0005xO-C3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:49:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY0aP-00019P-B0; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:48:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY0aN-00019C-Mz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:48:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY0aK-0004dp-Ck for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 04:48:31 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2727C24002A for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1692607706; bh=10c8rLSLh8hXYeDjMhCrS8j2VU4aYKoisWtdpQu9NNQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=nBNEoMZ1NGF1gWLXAGYiN6PIbnykhQkyzjBEpWnR0dfv5H1UWjdcInySMNvClqDSv mGGOdySIoWQTOORiMhGbMkvP/sPhn2PF0JmoXFeUjoWB7LCn/cAAErD0GZhVTi9I8D 1u1C9XZOrwGvgtLdLDVPVJaOhQwYJmKvGnthX7KQyMWQFuICZ9dIKoFGqrsrqZKnUe 3jg2IRW/go9amOpeQKvtCa0SY8zu1KA9QNpRZt2XnqI3+ItR+MXguH8JqLcIaUWbQo GJanYCuH34YQO2VONIO3Vra3GVfVgj5ouWRl7/9iGz2QZvRHJh5cpCQzp6hmRjM3Wo IcJqMZbOSQpEA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4RTmN92Kbdz9rxF; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:25 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83zg2lunp2.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -53 X-Spam_score: -5.4 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:309039 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > 'car' does have a dedicated bytecode op-code, but that op-code simply >> > calls XCAR, exactly like Fcar and CAR above do: >> >> Then, I conclude that the example with CL version of `car' is actually >> not worse in Elisp: > > I think you forget the price of running the interpreter. After > computing the value of 'car', the code must use it, and that's where > the difference comes from. Look at bytecode.c, from which I quoted a > tiny fragment, to see what Emacs does with the results of each > op-code. (It's actually what every byte-code machine out there does.) Do I understand correctly that the extra staff that has to be done by the byte-code machine is register manipulation? If so, the assembly will probably look similar - all these extra `mov's we see in the CL version will also be needed in Elisp to manipulate the return value of the `car' call. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at