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: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:01 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83v8xt20db.fsf@gnu.org> <83ee4gyzrh.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8xryh4d.fsf@gnu.org> <831qzyzt5t.fsf@gnu.org> <874k4u92gp.fsf@randomsample> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25803"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: David Engster , Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, mattiase@acm.org, gregory@heytings.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 21 00:03:11 2022 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 1nLvEU-0006Uz-ND for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:03:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36134 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLvET-0000Bi-8p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:03:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLvDY-0007uX-2N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:23271) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLvDU-0004qY-LA; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:11 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF5EB441845; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:05 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A84D344102D; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:04 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1645398124; bh=+XywPMyuB/JXJnApViyQSLdzT2awZWnq0y5ZT9Oyvm0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YX7FUhucq/pwVd4HFUNkwc7nRNCOqWjsgZiP7zjdbDuPtsjaa83BORF+wXpwX4S4k VR3I/N3dLKvjMfPct7p1OPoLK/pawQEVkxyg14InL+Y8c9f7m4f8GbNDK2j2F4wm68 0aKLxAAt8a1BfN+jHDWiaZUfHWY14/Yh8nB+2iASBI4lnyu0TgEPcbWfGorHiIQ2tq /OMMD5JR4iV0vUFlI4K0Psx9S+EKxq2n8ePf91p/5uJc3lY0lc48SOxOUEWc2BPfeg lxiMwJ7B86M3jCVA85wCPV/yHm0VBmE2/vNPmqx7O+W6FkSciL1p+AnsLoXn2Vqv9u MnNeeiYHewlOQ== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.237.157]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40DFE120813; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:02:04 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sun, 20 Feb 2022 20:56:02 +0000") 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:286539 Archived-At: > I think I'm just trying to get some sort of handle on how much the code > has slowed down because of EQ. Obviously, making EQ into a function > (rather than an inline function) will have distorted things, but it > seems the easiest way of measuring something at the moment. I understand, but it's still going to be hard to figure out what the result means. Let's say you find that the new non-inlined EQ is 20% slower than the old non-inlined EQ, what does it tell us about the inlined versions? It's quite possible that more than 50% of the time spent in the non-inlined EQ is spent in the "function call overhead" (the jumps themselves, the forced placement into specific registers, the need to reify a condition code into a boolean stored in a register, the impossibility to move code around the call to EQ because the compiler doesn't know it's a pure function, ...)? Stefan