From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: In support of guile-emacs Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20151019171909.GH2438@acm.fritz.box> References: <87fv17kgno.fsf@dustycloud.org> <20151019102414.GA2438@acm.fritz.box> <5624FADF.9070908@dancol.org> <20151019143527.GG2438@acm.fritz.box> <87eggqn6eo.fsf@T420.taylan> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445275081 15902 80.91.229.3 (19 Oct 2015 17:18:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:18:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Xue Fuqiao , Christopher Allan Webber , Daniel Colascione , bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?B?QmF5xLFybMSxL0thbW1lcg==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 19 19:17:44 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoE47-0006MQ-0N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:17:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41127 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoE46-0001v8-Fu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoE40-0001uN-Fo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoE3w-0007U6-CL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:53199) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoE3w-0007Tt-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:17:32 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 41687 invoked by uid 3782); 19 Oct 2015 17:17:30 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p5B14604F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.20.96.79]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:17:28 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3751 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Oct 2015 17:19:09 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eggqn6eo.fsf@T420.taylan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192118 Archived-At: Hello, Taylan. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:56:47PM +0200, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > Hello, Daniel. > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:14:55AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: > >> On 10/19/2015 03:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> > Hello, Xue. > >> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:07:59AM +0800, Xue Fuqiao wrote: > >> >> guile-emacs replaces Emacs's own Emacs Lisp engine with Guile's (without > >> >> breaking backward compatibility). So: > >> >> * Emacs Lisp will execute faster (Guile VM bytecode is more efficient) > >> > Just as a matter of interest, approximately how much faster is Guile > >> > bytecode than Emacs bytecode? Are we talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, a > >> > factor of 2, or even higher? > >> > If that speed increase was significant, it might be worth incorporating > >> > Guile's bytecode into Emacs just for that reason, regardless of any of > >> > the other stuff. > >> Or simply making completely independent and custom-tailored improvements > >> to the Emacs bytecode compiler and interpreter itself. There's no reason > >> to imagine that the only way to improve performance there is to move to > >> a completely different runtime. > > Indeed not. Lessons could be learnt from Guile, perhaps. But how much > > faster is Guile bytecode? > For the record, the unreleased Guile 2.2 uses a register VM (instead of > a stack VM), and has a different intermediate language on which more > optimization is done. There's prospect for native code compilation too > for the future, from what I gather. So Guile's performance isn't > exactly fixed at its current state, and improvements are happening at a > pretty impressive rate. A true politician's (non-)answer. ;-) Is the Guile VM, in fact, faster than the Emacs byte interpreter? Who's done any measurements? Surely the speed advantage/disadvantage of the Guile VM will depend, possibly a lot, on what program is being tested, but has anybody actually done any actual benchmarking? > Taylan -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).