From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rewriting make-docfile.c in Lisp? Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 15:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zgx9rx7w.fsf@catern.com> <83bl9p2m6s.fsf@gnu.org> <87v97xrurb.fsf@catern.com> <87r1ilrpnt.fsf@catern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Spencer Baugh Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed May 05 21:09:48 2021 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 1leMu4-0009EX-DA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 21:09:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32824 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1leMu2-00027W-Bi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 15:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38302) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1leMsY-0001gS-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 15:08:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:39312) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1leMsV-0007am-7b; Wed, 05 May 2021 15:08:13 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 030C61001FB; Wed, 5 May 2021 15:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4B46110019F; Wed, 5 May 2021 15:08:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1620241687; bh=lDwXzBYeAFylAxG7/+ilhRUV020dkd3YEDUJAXgWPbc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=T4oWIH0seMqfej0kShAKptouwlzys/X0OrLDEP4Y6/Ao9zJ8Zj8BOz86MQ8e/8YlA 6vVTvRV18jT82GsuOE3Ha1T2aRjEUS7Qe0gAMTPadRw2DVeH2Zz9hUgSwBJGc3K4Bc IQcutBf1ByrmZ+CLx16HvGuXLbVJSqHwcvqDmJbCRYgf7wWFY0ttqP5ffXnY8M8N7c 2ONsnXM84v3G51uYCOoBJ3UUupLjws2g/b4/PPTQG8VjAJZpvE738Xb0o3QBAb9WRf 5LzdWeXHP/e2NFgtcAVnIR7YAzAZ0X03YRcGeQoClYJrPPevxsz+8u75W23GjFDoHR 48Na+lLy8B51w== Original-Received: from alfajor (76-10-140-76.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.140.76]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E59C3120588; Wed, 5 May 2021 15:08:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87r1ilrpnt.fsf@catern.com> (Spencer Baugh's message of "Wed, 05 May 2021 14:39:18 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:268918 Archived-At: >> Why would one want to write it in Lisp anyway? >> We have a working program in C which requires little maintenance, yet >> which is used continually. Rewriting it in Lisp would be _work_. Agreed: I'm generally all for writing ELisp instead of C, but I wouldn't bother rewriting this code in ELisp, personally. > I was making a change and found it quite difficult. I think it would > be much simpler to change if it was in Lisp. I admit that since it's > rarely changed, it may not be worth it. Maybe if you described the change that motivates your proposal, we'd be less negative ;-) >> Also, the Lisp version would run more slowly than the C version, leading >> to more irritation over build speeds than there currently is. I think >> this is also part of the build which holds things up in a single core, >> thus making its speed more important than, say, a C or Lisp compilation. > A rewrite in Lisp could also take the opportunity to add parallelization > and speed it up, if indeed this is a bottleneck for the build. I don't think it can be sped up by writing it in ELisp (on the contrary). It could be changed such that `make` can run it in parallel on each C file, indeed, but it would have to be done well enough to make up for the slowdown imposed by the ELisp version. Stefan