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: [PATCH] src/comp.c: Use constructor expressions when possible. Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:59:08 +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="29968"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Vibhav Pant Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 15 17:59:51 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 1ojjZm-0007d4-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:59:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58214 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ojjZk-0007qR-Tn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 11:59:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40890) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ojjZB-00074R-Hc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 11:59:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:49870) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ojjZ8-0001PC-I2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 11:59:11 -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 29FFx89f022712 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:59:08 GMT In-Reply-To: (Vibhav Pant's message of "Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:07:31 +0530") 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:297792 Archived-At: Vibhav Pant writes: > On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 23:35 +0000, Andrea Corallo wrote: >> thanks for the patch, could you show how the generated pseudo C code >> generated with native-comp-debug = 2 changes with this patch for the >> impacted cases. > > Hi Andrea, > > I've attached the generated psuedo C code from compiling lisp/abbrel.el > on an Emacs build compiled with "--with-native-compilation=yes -- > enable-chech-lisp-object-type". For the change made to `emit_coerce', > an example of the newly generated code can be seen in the function > `add1', line 2359: > > return (struct Lisp_Object) {.i=(struct Lisp_X *)...}; > > This would have earlier consisted of a new local variable being > declared, and then have `i' set to the Lisp_X value in the next line. > > For `emit_limple_call_ref', any function that uses a `call_arr' > variable is initializes it in one go in one line. From line 2565: > > call_arr_4 = (struct Lisp_Object[6]) {d_reloc[(long long)5], (struct > Lisp_Object) {.i=(struct Lisp_X *)0xe}, (struct Lisp_Object) > {.i=(struct Lisp_X *)0x6}, (struct Lisp_Object) {.i=(struct Lisp_X > *)0xa}, (struct Lisp_Object) {.i=(struct Lisp_X *)0x6}, slot_10}; > > /* calling subr: funcall */ > slot_5 = freloc->R66756e63616c6c_funcall_0 ((long long)6, > (&call_arr_4[(long long)0])); > > IIUC, this would earlier have been a rather long ordeal, with every > array element that's a Lisp_Object having its own variable created > first, before being assigned to its respective array index :) Hi Vibhav, could you please produce the same without your patch an report it here? Also, do you see any difference in geenrated asm code? Thanks Andrea