From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: byte-code optimizations
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:00:35 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E1C8zQp-0001nv-Fm@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <200409181152.15364.pogonyshev@gmx.net>
	<m14qlvmknm.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1095591661 11020 80.91.229.6 (19 Sep 2004 11:01:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pogonyshev@gmx.net
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 19 13:00:52 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1C8zR0-0006Kh-00
	for <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:00:47 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C8zWp-0007MR-PL
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:06:47 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C8zWj-0007MM-UE
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:06:42 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C8zWj-0007MA-F9
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:06:41 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C8zWj-0007M7-Br
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:06:41 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C8zQq-000223-Ll
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:00:36 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1C8zQp-0001nv-Fm; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:00:35 -0400
Original-To: Stefan <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
In-reply-to: <m14qlvmknm.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan on
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:26:04 -0400)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27272
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27272

    Better yet: you also get the exact same result code (without any lapcode
    optimization) if you use

       (defsubst* cddr (x) (cdr (cdr x)))

    I.e. using the `defubst*' (from CL).

What aspect of that definition leads to better results?
Can we change the standard defsubst in a simple way
to achieve the same thing?