Re: native compilation units

[Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1738 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 10:20 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

>
> >> Also, what kind of startup time are you talking about?
> >> E.g., are you using `package-quickstart`?
> > That was the first alternative I tried.  With 1250 packages, it did not
> > work.
>
> Please `M-x report-emacs-bug` (and put me in `X-Debbugs-Cc`).
>
>
I was able to reproduce this at home on cygwin with 940 packages. I had
tried to install a few more than that (maybe 945 or something), I just
removed the corresponding sections of the last few until it did compile.
Then I verified that it didn't matter whether I removed the first or the
last
package autoloads, I would get the overflow regardless.
After spending the weekend going over byte code examples, I  looked
at the output, and it's literally just hitting 64k instructions.   Each
package
uses 17 instructions just putting itself on the loadpath, which accounts
for ~15000
instructions.  That means every package uses about 50 instructions on
average,
so (if that's representative), you wouldn't expect to be able to do much
more than 300
or so additional packages just from putting those paths in an array and
looping over them.
Most of the forms are just calls to a handful of operators with constant
arguments,
so I would assume you could just create arrays for the most common
instruction types, put the
argument lists in a giant vector, and then just loop over those vectors
performing the operator.
Then there'd be a handful of oddball expressions to handle.

Or, you could just create a vector with one thunk for each package and loop
through  it
invoking each one.  It wouldn't be as space efficient, but it would be
trivially correct.

I'll put this in a bug report.

Lynn

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2353 bytes --]