From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alex Gramiak Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600 Message-ID: <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="148845"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 19 23:32:17 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb7I-000cd3-Ga for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:32:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33515 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb7H-0003R2-Cu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:32:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56202) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb76-0003Py-4V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:32:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb74-0008Bu-Ij for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59511) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb74-0008Bo-F3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb74-0001ES-87 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:32:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Alex Gramiak Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:32:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35321 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 35321-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35321.15557094684664 (code B ref 35321); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:32:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 21:31:08 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44822 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb6C-0001D8-2k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:31:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:47016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb6A-0001CY-5e for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:31:06 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id o7so852332pll.13 for <35321@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:31:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=PH6SbT3MQikTMvKOpmtC/tbpGfPu4oqcfEuJGyAk/XQ=; b=BPzxkFJvil+FkU4BEbFm05UFY2sAK6EpIicKR/dCfodxyumYYNu/CNfQ1SBWOdsGsq S0eDYNfqAGGoF1W6a/GzBUZVwKp+GU780TryErmMifyeLtNQ2+ZNGQjRHQDU7oRm1riU 7cbPq+uwu/4Up+dI3hzNGJpLQU2f5nosPiDSk8gpJK2BDqRc473vZ2TjZoCEGYPiLp2C qGWO4OFnW72609CRfqA3asyCCKEhD+31sA2nlTeihQCEdJHSaBW3XrDUnaCzuBmYvSFb 8R3qSRSIkA1Iu/OxPX67hIeLyBFiwijK7necSwTxsnH2NiFxBYJ7ru7ksZA77JhuCHEN 2KBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=PH6SbT3MQikTMvKOpmtC/tbpGfPu4oqcfEuJGyAk/XQ=; b=chnK5QoK9z1G7YPp39GWU6i9ieBdjx4T3biLdeeg8YLThDx7/4KeKCTdu6Ht5jpPjL 45KRsGDqXNW2ABpgTJ03ErUWYQXD30D4md2Rf5wvIZbkmhgHVjGUxIapni/KDw798Dl/ TyVIbKA/HZZ62vr5I0mqQfGEYhhZ+2Akc/02yKwHi/kTWYb/VZNifJv3I4k/HnPnucZc HXus4sSU+U6NjYmh+id0/GWjCGRg198ZFpDovUSuUGUZ4wd49GnkG6fcMUgECc5xgb0P NxGju961bTUBWobEkJv92Cn4MFaJKFX1diptEa0nPvWgLrLlDThdvtk6LfczTAL93Ln1 fW/w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7SI0IdWbqPQnmmxo8PFr4+SBivltnWtbYmuTmWHJH7zLobcYW 8QmN+0aVdfy8rGdcblI+gHDs+3ng X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgvaRmkxHNTI5Kj/LtIKlKqS6GdgYtiIheszdL2kFkFIyQJw1i/BpD1ybQ26NoNQ8i8zdUPQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a5ca:: with SMTP id t10mr6139596plq.234.1555709459947; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from lylat ([2604:3d09:e37f:1500:1a72:4878:e793:7302]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm8275895pfe.188.2019.04.19.14.30.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:157871 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Alex Gramiak >> Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600 >> >> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains? >> >> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently >> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If >> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess >> it's safer to leave it alone. > > Is there any reason other than performance to make the change? There's no functional difference, so the only remaining aspects are readability and similarity with the other BlistX cases. I suppose it loses on the readability front, and it's not much of an issue to be dissimilar to Blist2. Perhaps it's best to leave this alone after all. > Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change? They're used any time (list x y z) and (list w x y z) are byte-compiled, so I imagine they're used quite a bit.