From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lexical-binding causes a lot more GC, why? Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5633DDD2.9080900@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228934a2f554052359b276 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446243072 5279 80.91.229.3 (30 Oct 2015 22:11:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 30 23:11:07 2015 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 1ZsHt2-00049y-DL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:11:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53413 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsHt2-0002YK-3s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:11:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsHsg-0002Y5-AQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:10:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsHsf-0000fx-9O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:10:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]:35258) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZsHse-0000fr-Pf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:10:40 -0400 Original-Received: by lfbn126 with SMTP id n126so40656208lfb.2 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=b3XggrWZIsipOm28hMoRSlZnLA6igOA7PHUpmQebj1I=; b=0Ql3yWsSAbXCZIftCklmLbAhVFpPa968xfMpwh2zkUeIKTlPHL3ELRZMJwyVI4zcZw +zWEJLD2Cbo6/bIv7MuRJ78ZBiy6CZINXLEWDDbq6HMDBjIR97YTz8oAZtLAqCZ6l8G/ ucrxxJ/+G8wiUwLVZhFVQ9sOacgyaaqXWu8yHRj+5cvMO7wofrIRPuV8bGB5EZcNNCVi UHAzFSWvvQMsqYT1OLVRQh6WQs+VNQAu6CW2bVw99WC7AccssqrYbePbwo4GfPy29VHn Aevoh1fUC2zdDyb1xZo9oWSor76m6kKGxqcm9Ua4nJ9z8dBuiqZdPotm44wxWKvbRBCQ 9LkA== X-Received: by 10.112.135.233 with SMTP id pv9mr5151967lbb.42.1446243039637; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.91.106 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.91.106 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:10:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5633DDD2.9080900@cs.ucla.edu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: _2L0ch1j9t5D8GHO3WHPrZJqzu4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::229 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:192991 Archived-At: --089e01228934a2f554052359b276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 30 Oct 2015 9:14 pm, "Paul Eggert" wrote: > > On 10/28/2015 08:12 AM, Le Wang wrote: >> >> >> I thought lexical-binding should always result in perf gains > > > Isn't lexical binding implemented by passing around a list of bindings? That might explain the performance problems you see. (Sorry, I haven't looked at the actual code; this is just my vague recollection.) I believe that's only the case for non compiled code. --089e01228934a2f554052359b276 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 30 Oct 2015 9:14 pm, "Paul Eggert" <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2015 08:12 AM, Le Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought lexical-binding should always result in perf gains
>
>
> Isn't lexical binding implemented by passing around a list of bind= ings?=C2=A0 That might explain the performance problems you see. (Sorry, I = haven't looked at the actual code; this is just my vague recollection.)=

I believe that's only the case for non compiled code. --089e01228934a2f554052359b276--