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 22:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200520062521.6783.95407@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200520062523.3EF4A20AEB@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <51264591-6e62-e2df-2571-181679fc90f9@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="109551"; 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 04:30:50 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 1jbayv-000SRR-GJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 May 2020 04:30:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41848 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbayu-0003XW-HJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbayP-00032K-4v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:37809) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jbayN-0003T0-Cr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:15 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 050194406D1; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC5514406CE; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:12 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1590028212; bh=vmzuowgXJeM/0u9YWgwqDLz09w7k34cMH2o0gLTOHvQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KTi3Ks77z2u8zLObECCgoawbnTzlv+rAK8USdk309hwv8rt6T2Bh8PtbyCdqOm8oY 1vJN3VckWUoovzD4aeYD1K8DPMOgiD12LAE357xv0jHjx6cmAyfINymVtMO+I4yTp5 zHN880GkLspanAHUOoU5xfUXjIyHh0lDaFXoFFr9R9ykHR562sleZrnKAwbF/L3LiG piCZoZXpI84XuH7xZLlyRjfnF4vhE4cpmkfG4UOqZzL3pjgj641UJNUgQgG6VQW0iY cCfYXed1T71bBWhGDmu41YrUpSidhH9G+GoUJwmFPYXr7HHIkMbT77OL3dZHm41qZP YdPA4gtaHX5BA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.27.250]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A4291202CE; Wed, 20 May 2020 22:30:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <51264591-6e62-e2df-2571-181679fc90f9@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 17:54:35 -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 22:30:14 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:251138 Archived-At: >> My point is that 99% of the calls to `exec_byte_code` don't go through >> `Fbyte_code`. > Those other calls are also supposed to arrange for the relevant checks to be > done, typically when the objects given to exec_byte_code were created. It > saves some time to do the checks once on object creation rather than every > time the byte code is called. I understand, but looking at the patch and the comment message, I see that you moved the checks from exec_byte_code to Fbyte_code and moved duplicated *some* of the checks in make_byte_code but not all of them. I probably missed something, Stefan