From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shrinking the C core Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 15:36:34 +0000 Message-ID: <877cpp914t.fsf@localhost> References: <20230809094655.793FC18A4654@snark.thyrsus.com> <87fs4pkkqi.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztzkgct.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87y1if8j8t.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <87y1ifi9fv.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87zg2uqdmv.fsf@localhost> <87edk3gbh3.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztvnuyb.fsf@localhost> <875y5bdutt.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87y1i6e1uh.fsf@localhost> <874jkub40o.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztqdw2l.fsf@localhost> <87msym9i4r.fsf@dataswamp.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="38133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Emanuel Berg , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 20 17:37:03 2023 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 1qXkUA-0009hS-M7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:37:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qXkTP-0002RJ-5C; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qXkTO-0002O6-5A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:36:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qXkTK-0003BR-UO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 11:36:13 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2269240029 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:36:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1692545769; bh=jzHpH0KNHgrVZJ0jm5el716CjussA/XzLP0MyFwP10M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=IFzdqVea7kbJoAqlGmyWo3oavCAtNAAz8wk8tbM9gVHsigyDjBhmyNZIkmFjALDSi h9q8o8SR1iNoIkrJr/HgYlRDO5mAzNo+nkKu2gUgTy5vmcPoxC48d9IVjcgzpvZtSj NSGvbYmttgiSLRF8e93BkvfHbbf+DWhjMhf8KcOl9Sl/LVEZO/ae41sSFSfNuy9nnI iWqE5SXFEq2nB4eRgMgRALtPPqYfy4cILn0pORxPh6ApLbo3LwM6yqFT6diWXI8Uml QqTCCFUPykuGAbLiAWkyAeMzenXZOVNrX+VHxpEG4MygBxUhdHv1LP0tf+eunQzaAE 0zDlaw59dgr+g== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4RTKT425nzz9rxD; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:36:08 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -53 X-Spam_score: -5.4 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:308966 Archived-At: "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > Please keep the CC intact, not everyone subscribed. > > > It should be quite obvious why SBCL is faster than the Emacs > > Lisp VM (or even native). Just look at this call to (car > > "foo"), and compare what happens in Emacs. > > > > * (disassemble 'foo) > > ; disassembly for FOO > > ; Size: 166 bytes. Origin: #x225D873F ; FOO >> ... > Okay? > > I guess that you do not understand the above? Or what? Do you know > and understand what happens in Emacs when a similar call is done? It > is far more than "166 bytes". It would be helpful if you show us what happens in Elisp with a similar call. Especially after native compilation. I am asking genuinely because `car' (1) has dedicated opt code and thus should be one of the best-optimized function calls on Elisp side; (2) Fcar is nothing but /* Take the car or cdr of something whose type is not known. */ INLINE Lisp_Object CAR (Lisp_Object c) { if (CONSP (c)) return XCAR (c); // <- XCONS (c)->u.s.car if (!NILP (c)) wrong_type_argument (Qlistp, c); return Qnil; } So, it is a very simple example that can actually explain the basic differences between Elisp and CL. It would be nice if you (considering your low-level understanding) can provide us with an analysis of what is different between Elisp and CL implementations of such a simple function. > This has literally nothing to do with the difference between static > typing, and dynamic typing. The author, and you, have it completeley > backwards ... I am sorry, because it was my message that started the confusion. I was mostly referring to separation between Elisp interpreted/byte/native code and C subrs. AFAIU, static analysis info cannot be passed between these two parts of Emacs runtime: subr cannot know in advance what Lisp_Object type it is working on, even if static analysis of the caller Elisp code has such information (e.g. from GCC JIT compiler). -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at