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: native compilation units Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 06:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lynn Winebarger Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 08 08:55:59 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 1nypbj-0003Wh-6C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 08:55:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41124 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nypbh-0007IA-J5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 02:55:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nypT9-0000Zj-Bi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 02:47:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:53541) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nypT7-0006bI-Dp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 02:47:07 -0400 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 2586kv2u004778 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 8 Jun 2022 06:46:58 GMT In-Reply-To: (Lynn Winebarger's message of "Fri, 3 Jun 2022 22:43:33 -0400") 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, 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:290902 Archived-At: Lynn Winebarger writes: [...] > From Andrea's description, this would be the primary "unsafe" aspect of intraprocedural optimizations applied to one of > these aggregated compilation units. That is, that the semantics of redefining function symbols would not apply to points > in the code at which the compiler had made optimizations based on assuming the function definitions were constants. It's > not clear to me whether those points are limited to call sites or not. Yes, they are limited to the call site. Andrea