From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shrinking the C core Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87msym9i4r.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <20230809094655.793FC18A4654@snark.thyrsus.com> <87fs4pkkqi.fsf@dataswamp.org> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:x2Wk2f3ksJosutDEhqSUrJaSteI= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 20 14:28:23 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 1qXhXa-0006NO-F5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 14:28:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qXhWl-0002kh-C0; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 08:27:31 -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 1qXekc-0001XF-Kq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 05:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qXekZ-0005wu-3d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 05:29:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qXekW-0008Iw-Vt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:29:32 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 08:27:28 -0400 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:308959 Archived-At: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > And even this is not a definitive answer. I do not think > that we can point out a single reason why SBCL is faster. > I am not even sure if SBCL is _always_ faster. > > Always faster than what? What are you comparing? We are working on it. > SBCL is a compiler, Emacs is more than that. Including SBCL with SLIME, but that would still be CL with SBCL and not Elisp which is what we are (not) comparing with. > It should be quite obvious why SBCL is faster than the Emacs > Lisp VM (or even native). Just look at this call to (car > "foo"), and compare what happens in Emacs. > > * (disassemble 'foo) > ; disassembly for FOO > ; Size: 166 bytes. Origin: #x225D873F ; FOO > ; 3F: 488B042590060020 MOV RAX, [#x20000690] > ; 47: 488945F8 MOV [RBP-8], RAX > ; 4B: 48892C2560060020 MOV [#x20000660], RBP > ; 53: 488B142518000020 MOV RDX, [#x20000018] > ; 5B: 488D4210 LEA RAX, [RDX+16] > ; 5F: 483B042520000020 CMP RAX, [#x20000020] > ; 67: 7770 JA L2 > ; 69: 4889042518000020 MOV [#x20000018], RAX > ; 71: L0: 488B0570FFFFFF MOV RAX, [RIP-144] ; "foo" > ; 78: 488902 MOV [RDX], RAX > ; 7B: 48C7420817010020 MOV QWORD PTR [RDX+8], #x20000117 ; NIL > ; 83: 80CA07 OR DL, 7 > ; 86: 48312C2560060020 XOR [#x20000660], RBP > ; 8E: 7402 JEQ L1 > ; 90: CC09 INT3 9 ; pending interrupt trap > ; 92: L1: 4C8D4424F0 LEA R8, [RSP-16] > ; 97: 4883EC30 SUB RSP, 48 > ; 9B: BFAF0B1520 MOV EDI, #x20150BAF ; 'LIST > ; A0: 488B3551FFFFFF MOV RSI, [RIP-175] ; '(VALUES > ; (SIMPLE-ARRAY ..)) > ; A7: 488B0552FFFFFF MOV RAX, [RIP-174] ; '("foo") > ; AE: 498940F0 MOV [R8-16], RAX > ; B2: 488B054FFFFFFF MOV RAX, [RIP-177] ; "(CAR \"foo\")" > ; B9: 498940E8 MOV [R8-24], RAX > ; BD: 49C740E017010020 MOV QWORD PTR [R8-32], #x20000117 ; NIL > ; C5: B90C000000 MOV ECX, 12 > ; CA: 498928 MOV [R8], RBP > ; CD: 498BE8 MOV RBP, R8 > ; D0: B882B12620 MOV EAX, #x2026B182 ; # > ; D5: FFD0 CALL RAX > ; D7: CC10 INT3 16 ; Invalid argument count trap > ; D9: L2: 6A10 PUSH 16 > ; DB: FF1425B0080020 CALL [#x200008B0] ; #x21A00540: LIST-ALLOC-TRAMP > ; E2: 5A POP RDX > ; E3: EB8C JMP L0 > NIL > * Okay? >> If we talk about type checking, Elisp uses dynamic typing >> and compilation cannot do much about it. Native compilation >> also does not touch C subroutines - the place where >> typechecks are performed. > > SBCL implements a Lisp, Lisp by definition is > dynamically typed. Only for the kind of use (code) that we are used to. See this: https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-the-programmable-programming-language-lisp-79bb79eb068a For example (defunt meh5c ((int p1) (int p2)) (+ p1 p2)) (meh5c 1 2) ; ==> 3 with defunt being a macro that uses declare. A simple example is given earlier in the text, (defun meh (p1) (declare (fixnum p1)) (+ p1 3)) -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal