From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Excessive use of `eassert` Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83jzo5x0q8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23765"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 19 14:03:36 2024 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 1rQoX2-0005z8-9j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:03:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQoWF-0000wj-0c; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:02:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQoVO-0000jF-AY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQoVM-0008VO-Ic; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:53 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 99416100068; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:49 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1705669308; bh=USzG83EBgdlyOPi9ibHIxucR7fh0MCRJhvoqCYlQ2Vs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=XrLS8KZTBikYJp/WrVOquZZXf7Z/EKNRpTZyBIKHSP4i1XFGAMQPQEKB85rYLSrs3 Vm9eUBvAHv3Vuvbj3JOQsyiAjy+qzfbYm0VqL3hSCv5nPJVl/52tcmPs6UOA8R/jp7 tv3qJ+tdgU3rGmfosb34UBBESGhuoMDJX4mOzaMJXJAen5zMGj8VBVK9OLyG7/U/ks xBQeucXVKTyhsfpbBNwPRNUsh64y9CQnjVriKZLt24PKmud5ce9MdwHobREXt/lJ5b BJR1eHAM9plVVWQJBJH02c5KiBdEjxXnFfafZHPdTzdsXvWxDex8IypJnwEhbP4R0k 0ns/TT4u1+9bQ== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B25F610004C; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:48 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (104-222-114-253.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.114.253]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E1E7120111; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:01:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83jzo5x0q8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:04:47 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315112 Archived-At: >> shows that `make_lisp_symbol` is not inlined, so NILP(x) ends up being >> an actual function call to a function calling another function .... >> which I think is definitely in the "excessive" camp :-) > > I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that the > assertion causes make_lisp_symbol not to be inlined? And what > functions are called by NILP? AFAICT it's worse than just `NILP`, I think, because every `Qnil` (same thing with all other `Q`, I guess) becomes a call to `builtin_lisp_symbol` which itself has a call to `make_lisp_symbol`. >> The patch below seems to address this specific issue, tho I haven't >> measured its performance impact yet. > Is this specifically about NILP? Or are there other situations where > this assertion slows us down considerably. I wouldn't want to drop > this assertion so summarily, if possible. Why do you find this specific assertion important? When building other `Lisp_Object`s (like `make_fixnum`) we don't seem to have any corresponding assertion that the revere operation (e.g. XFIXNUM) returns the original value. Stefan