From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:51:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477659264 3468 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 12:54:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:54:24 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 14:54:20 2016 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 1c06fR-0005sX-Uo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:53:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48986 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c06fU-0002M1-H0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:53:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c06da-0000pD-Cz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:51:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c06dX-0003z5-BT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:51:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=47745 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c06dX-0003yi-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:51:55 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c06dL-0007CU-Ra for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:51:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 10 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:aCcLTKjmU/d/dcjua7o024Uh0sM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:208939 Archived-At: > There is no reason why we have to choose between C code and Lisp code. > It's worth developing a special-purpose format for this, if that would > be considerably faster. We're still investigating how much time can be gained just by optimizing lread.c. But yes, maybe another format (which could also be used for .elc files, of course) would allow reading faster. Stefan