From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should wide-int be registered in features? Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:56:42 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1522967667743-0.post@n8.nabble.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522976098 17486 195.159.176.226 (6 Apr 2018 00:54:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 00:54:58 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 06 02:54:54 2018 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 1f4FeY-0004Rr-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 02:54:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39750 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Fgc-0008Kr-4u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54913) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4FgT-0008K3-W5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:56:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4FgQ-000650-Up for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=47433 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4FgQ-00064E-OM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Apr 2018 20:56:50 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f4FeI-0004Ak-0D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 02:54:38 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:n7rwscW2S6C+IkJ5fkLsQ/jE9DI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:224385 Archived-At: > "should" is not the same thing as "does". If I have this correct knowing > this and knowing how the bytecode was created would have been helpful. You seem to refer to a known case where you think this would have been useful, but I don't know what that case is. AFAIK the recent discussions were mostly concerned about whether Emacs's integers were 30bit or 62bit, which you can readily test by looking at most-positive-fixnum or by checking something like (zerop (expt 2 40)). > Also, I believe there are performance differences and differences > in capabilities. e.g --with-wide-int adds: >> buffer and string size up to 2GB on 32-bit hosts, at the cost of 10% to >> 30% slowdown of Lisp > and how inside of Emacs is one supposed to know if this is in effect? Why/when would Elisp need to know? The same slowdown could occur because of load on the machine. Similar object size limits could come from the OS rather than from the way Emacs was compiled. Stefan