From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Vibhav Pant Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add new bytecode op `switch' for implementing branch tables. Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 23:55:29 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1b07c68a-873e-83c8-246d-423bc83a3881@gmail.com> <712df469-190d-aeab-e239-1f225be3333f@gmail.com> <25a6003d-1d9b-381f-29b0-aece30af1def@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486751202 8302 195.159.176.226 (10 Feb 2017 18:26:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 10 19:26:38 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ccFu1-0001n3-Ln for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:26:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45418 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccFu6-0000zG-PL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:26:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54685) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccFtH-0000xU-Ft for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:25:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccFtG-0003kP-LI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:25:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::241]:36772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccFtG-0003kD-Co for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:25:50 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-x241.google.com with SMTP id q71so3125514ywg.3 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:25:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EJBDHVBUdaPjYXzBFDSjioc3CnBJ95pPX3CL1HkVrF4=; b=bnWbqC1LYfsx9KLgVSbAdV9Zto3AwIRg4cEC7xmdzE+NNZ/D114Zk5ik0u73++C2xm wJ5ZpQdhtFBRZeADMIW/iFz7nBavQh6LkXvHoWDPVTEnkZwGntRtPgAlbvKulrlnrX5X i4jbPy3cE+7BpPv9//RlcrSqA0xwvVPAFCCXEf4pwCqqYcJiAV7ZwEb07GjgziizWX+i /2MMMePH+jcXaXACFtb9VS0Fc5YTZt9DzS+sh6M0ll49dL/VGz6Z0Igjs7s9CdVpoj8b YP7azyXsQzckPzHEt+ppx9PLDrAxFrkCYSfZvozjRhbUTzv8iK3C6lO7i0rnUdFmSVqZ SIMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EJBDHVBUdaPjYXzBFDSjioc3CnBJ95pPX3CL1HkVrF4=; b=nzjPp7zqCGwcnZ+bKIuAHMYaSU7p/bTT2UsPvaLdb2zt2nInns7FvLF4Wg+UZHnMNT w3R7R1cWt8ao+4qZR6oZlny5jAA9AeN9OeR3fCL1fjlwxuJn+0Dah/5sUHRfPLf5Tl0O DLTJi0c4rBi93oS/fRV6QNU1SBTf+TP0o8BnvhPMM53Mo/Gu9QAoGxYhcDQcic4Cm7Q6 CHc3pj7wvB+l6SGPg9TaisrAXaCpwrlKm1+2RNM45i2PBBzHt7MDNjTeZpD3JZR6+nX+ /7nNG6w8djQXFoXTpnnGlXOQ4RqdQQfLyRuUqfTb6iBM8TOr3qtqnBvt1spVAM3XvHhP z/Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mhuz1/9ySqF5ZRE1XEQIQ/BYf6RcgIbx7PXLO/QOiQsY/ibBMpR4b/MVe4AHY2zOGnSnKN+vf86Zlpbw== X-Received: by 10.13.218.195 with SMTP id c186mr7739008ywe.15.1486751149552; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:25:49 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.129.153.77 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:25:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::241 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212212 Archived-At: Are there any other issues before I merge this into master? On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Vibhav Pant wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Stefan Monnier > wrote: >>>> The linear search should compare HASH_HASH(h, i) to the search key's >>>> hash anyway, so this comparison against nil is not needed. >>> Is that strictly needed, though? >> >> No, it's an optimisation to avoid calling Fequal unnecessarily. > > Ah, I see, I've added this to the linear search code in bytecode.c. > > -- > Vibhav Pant > vibhavp@gmail.com -- Vibhav Pant vibhavp@gmail.com