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: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 11:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: <87a5ukfw2j.fsf@localhost> References: <20230809094655.793FC18A4654@snark.thyrsus.com> <875y5bdutt.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87y1i6e1uh.fsf@localhost> <874jkub40o.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87jztqdw2l.fsf@localhost> <87msym9i4r.fsf@dataswamp.org> <877cpp914t.fsf@localhost> <83fs4dwwdo.fsf@gnu.org> <874jkt90a5.fsf@localhost> <87y1i57jqi.fsf@localhost> <87pm3h7h8k.fsf@localhost> <87h6ot7cf3.fsf@localhost> <87edjx7c0b.fsf@localhost> <831qfxw2cx.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8d95918.fsf@localhost> <83y1i4vfgl.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="7029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ams@gnu.org, incal@dataswamp.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 21 13:56:31 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 1qY3WI-0001ZG-GH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:56:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY3Vk-0002J3-Rl; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:55:56 -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 1qY3Vi-0002I5-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:55:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qY3Vg-0003pf-8g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 07:55:54 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9332240101 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:55:50 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1692618950; bh=mie2xTH3Q0SlK5+WTGgw+ZkIrZq5XS9s4w13naAsgRw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=M4UICavS/aaiqF4TiTEaYJQic5SkNX6VO18E2K2NhR8t8zh7Rtx43fH1xGujSdrNp 9fMMPKGzV4thcB2JLrfF0zo28QUEgfHz0fy1vp3+NWc0lYzJz6P213OY4Hh9r88b28 tpkIGs6C+lZoCcbCH5ylJ5205KRzz5mmpUCJ1casAtgSehT2uOtKm/EJxPnBx3zxJW dKMaEC15oEN8JSn/OX5nYDcW1Q4Dz5D+81F3HqxHKiMazTuzRX6VoNyWTiAArTwwqE c7yxh9+axKT6y/Jj4dTWnJ96a5mKXbYTdXgLD/rYfF4HCxxUAcTFJe5o/3DAZlfXAm oiex5o/UgymzQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4RTrXP6yZNz9rxG; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:55:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83y1i4vfgl.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 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=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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:309066 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> (let ((a 10)) >> (setq a (+ a 100)) >> (floor a nil)) >> >> During compilation of the above code, the compiler will know that a is a >> positive integer. > > It will? What happens if a overflows? It will not, right? Because we do know all the values at compile time in the above example. I am not sure if we can as far as checking the value range at compile time, but it is at least theoretically possible. >> Therefore, CHECK_NUMBER, NILP, and FLOATP are not >> necessary and can be omitted in the call to `floor': > > If you want to program in C or Fortran, then program in C or Fortran. > Lisp is an interpreted environment that traditionally includes safety > nets. People actually complain to us, and rightfully so, when Emacs > crashes or produces corrupted results instead if signaling an error > pointing out invalid input or other run-time problems. I did not mean to disable checks. I just meant that when the types and possibly value ranges are known at compile time, these checks can be safely omitted. Without compromising safety. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at