From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-diffs Digest, Vol 94, Issue 89 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:29:02 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87fwwyzy0h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <83zkv7rmpe.fsf@gnu.org> <83tylesyyk.fsf@gnu.org> <83r5gisxmp.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285360168 5622 80.91.229.12 (24 Sep 2010 20:29:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:29:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 24 22:29:27 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzEta-0007Bm-Ed for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:29:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37594 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OzEtZ-00086E-Lw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:29:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59369 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OzEtT-00085A-Pj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:29:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzEtS-0002yJ-N7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:29:19 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:48541) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzEtS-0002yD-DE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:29:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzEtL-00076R-Tx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:29:11 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ed727.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.215.39]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:29:11 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ed727.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:29:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ed727.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:giBOxJNWnJ6vn4paghbmxr2Z5xE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130805 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Or maybe you mean that Stefan thought casting was not the best idea. > In that case, I'd like Stefan's opinion on this one: > >> - int frame_lines = FRAME_LINES (frame); >> + EMACS_INT frame_lines = FRAME_LINES (frame); > > I think down that lane lies madness, because we have lots of struct > members that are Lisp integers, and assigning the result of XINT of > every one of them to an EMACS_INT will significantly and unnecessarily > increase our stack usage (on 64-bit machines). "Significantly"? Reality check. How deep are you planning to recurse? Are you still trying to fit a working Emacs into 64kB? The significant costs are, if at all, in the structs containing the "struct members" since in contrast to the automatic scalar variables of a typical function that does rarely if ever recurse, there can be lots of them at once, and apparently those _are_ already EMACS_INT, so _that_ cost, which is likely quite more significant, has already been paid without people complaining. -- David Kastrup