From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution! Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:18:48 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83pmqm16vz.fsf@gnu.org> <8335nh29pt.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnktzxb2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3463"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 01 17:20:55 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 1msSLn-0000gX-7o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 17:20:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42758 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msSLl-0005qo-QO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:20:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33910) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msSJq-0004b9-Cb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:18:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:61731) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1msSJo-0006P4-By; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:18:54 -0500 Original-Received: from ma.sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 1B1GImoo013541 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:18:48 GMT In-Reply-To: (Andrea Corallo's message of "Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:15:33 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 2.1.29 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:280638 Archived-At: Andrea Corallo writes: > Hi Alan, > > I think would be interesting to have a comparative run also using > > > Andrea Adding on this, given we should very carefully evaluate the performance impact (one single benchmark is certainly not sufficient), I think we should stay away for solutions adding performance cost to the run-time. There's no question we'll have to pay a cost for this, but the other solutions on the table (hashing conses or fat conses) are impacting only the compile time and therefore IMO should definitely be preferred. Regards Andrea