From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master f0b0105: Hoist some byte-code checking out of eval Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200520062521.6783.95407@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200520062523.3EF4A20AEB@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="4723"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu May 21 01:22:38 2020 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 1jbY2o-0001AG-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 01:22:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57966 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbY2n-0003hw-CU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:22:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbY21-0002jK-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:46159) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbY20-0003UR-Oo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:49 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EB99480B6D; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3789B801A3; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:46 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1590016906; bh=aZPGQmKjrRbI2iBL+/cgmWwzUzqz9qOSkIo6DxKpcIw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XvVcUJYAGvIASpgqXPkAGjRWGgicwPWdZ+1TucbYTke4YY9y5mRm75Ywy1EeImJMQ nAxfIbTLlYozLEJbhkIJfvhKXS9r6aT0UBUWXPNtJGJU2HUU7X3OdchF3c0kGDlFaI 3ztO9vn3vis026F98bJkQSeo8JluuIQJ5BU6ddakE7eJ/ndNIa8ee34Cim+PTADZBa gpVLF4J3IAUcr9f46bVy/S/uFe9I1X+Hb2MaGQXhKkj3lgnWL0fg83YNwg0r6R3Kot +CZwTYLTxWAZyQ70ENgmM1abpikritKlhC2YBzsHOzu4ZpPHVxfz2MHD50/Xi7SaBb ieBQXrVLLEq0Q== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.27.250]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB10012021C; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:21:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 14:21:33 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/20 19:17:14 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:251130 Archived-At: >> AFAIK this function is only used in the >> extremely rare case that Elisp does >> (byte-code "blabla") >> So I think some of the checks you removed from `exec_byte_code` will >> simply not be performed any more (at least not on >> `byte-code-function-p` objects). > > Thanks for reviewing the patch. > > What checks do you have in mind? Formerly, exec_byte_code did this: > > CHECK_STRING (bytestr); > CHECK_VECTOR (vector); > CHECK_FIXNAT (maxdepth); > if (STRING_MULTIBYTE (bytestr)) > bytestr = Fstring_as_unibyte (bytestr); > > Now, byte-code does this: > > if (! (STRINGP (bytestr) && VECTORP (vector) && FIXNATP (maxdepth))) > error ("Invalid byte-code"); > > if (STRING_MULTIBYTE (bytestr)) > bytestr = Fstring_as_unibyte (bytestr); > > and to my eye this does everything that exec_byte_code used to do. My point is that 99% of the calls to `exec_byte_code` don't go through `Fbyte_code`. Stefan