From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Pogonyshev Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: (unknown) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:48:13 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1489942106 3771 195.159.176.226 (19 Mar 2017 16:48:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 16:48:26 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 19 17:48:22 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cpe0C-0008OE-Ko for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:48:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57501 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpe0D-0006IY-Ry for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:48:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34613) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpe08-0006IQ-7a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:48:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpe07-0006ih-Cr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:48:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]:35648) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cpe07-0006ia-7F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:48:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 20so8195963pfk.2 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qZS56Ay4tCmtcDLCCdiSiDiZ9MSm+yI5XGD6q0G21pE=; b=OFvBQ7hWxZgI3OH6fiwtIehWW3RFpEf+ymFfmPU0ujjuadabGPQgC3i6wGJT40t46c 5Jl7UASd/0YhrieonDf41orJB5+ezsl6UrhwWAX89yimLy/cO1gIx4SSZtPFbL3fsU7a qxubFAxDN8DhiRDg8idWRwXkRvi3OAXiWHXZfR6VWU5KYdx6m/o5pmgf49niF0P/JJIx kRPa3kWjQ7JI54/BdXoVg4Ya5pMUlTTKvCy55bE2ZXDG71qL0nDtc1XwlsgYHS7uALTF DgLI8vltYgM1N84RPGXjlTTPywLax3lPcbFkpAqFkTBI34UXuX9dbLjCgUn+W3pNktx9 Pu/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qZS56Ay4tCmtcDLCCdiSiDiZ9MSm+yI5XGD6q0G21pE=; b=s/BKTEpHEHsZTuzhoqJRbvKHnVdmeaJvvsiiZ2iI8dnIMjP8YPahEOO/TfBhMmJLNM 8aZtOk3kgv+gP5iiG+A3/SxxOnMoHJOUtk/j2se3j26GJ/UGpRS+UwoiRSWBuIUSCQNO eo64GKBH7hxG5APDs0ELNw2ZE9ImfIrXRJDqYlv7zvIE+HfYEu/zNdF96Hsm5WizzviD PE3k5fsY6FtRJbKpYSM1hhc9DM8WfOi6THRn013LurMuWrP/dYYN1sSgPcW9Gj992lHV 0ghfo7obr8ouB7++YP1TC1xAR39jR3Jaimjy7TD7XNtV2XT/HSVwNFYfdufhRDuR9aDT eH2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3EgOjTmCjeYM3TEtSdO0nmAjPesLtqVz/EHeRpikfGiGEgVVo6gy1VGY1HOk5kdpi0zVZXnjmRFNF67g== X-Received: by 10.99.60.76 with SMTP id i12mr27628230pgn.30.1489942093638; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.138.13 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Original-Subject: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:213160 Archived-At: >>> Have you tried to measure the impact of your patch on the actual problem? >> I mentioned 3%. > >That's the percentage impact on the number of lambdas. I'm curious >about its impact on actual problematic aspects, such as speed and code >size (and compilation time, I guess). > >> Yes, it is practically negligible, but this is a first small patch and >> I'm willing to work on improving generators further. > >Of course. Actually, forget it. It's too complicated to jump through all the hoops here. I would just be glad if someone applied the patch from bug 26068. It's a fix, not an optimization, and there is example of a form, evaluation of which it fixes. And if you reply, *please*, keep me on CC, otherwise I won't see your mail. Paul