From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r117941: Default to stack objects on non-GNU/Linux, non-DOS_NT platforms. Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:12:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: <837g0sw1yx.fsf@gnu.org> <5423E5B0.4070002@yandex.ru> <54243ED1.4060708@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411668841 14942 80.91.229.3 (25 Sep 2014 18:14:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Paul Eggert , Emacs development discussions To: Dmitry Antipov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 25 20:13:53 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XXDY9-0004D2-7V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:13:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41695 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXDY8-0006C8-Oq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXDXx-0006Ax-AW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:13:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXDXp-0002KO-3V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:13:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.24.67]:49677) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXDXg-0002I4-GC; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:13:24 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0EE84EC5; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06ADC1E5B74; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id CAABBB4461; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:12:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <54243ED1.4060708@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Antipov's message of "Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:12:01 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82, MC_TSTLAST 0.00) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 132.204.24.67 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:174711 Archived-At: >> IIUC the point of this new code is to improve performance > Yes. I should say that I've seen small but stable improvements before > r117942, It'd be good to see actual numbers. I know that the performance benefits for "average editing" is going to be negligible and I can live with that, but I do want to see at least some real-use scenarios where the benefit is tangible. > but adding extra precautions against stack overflow makes > them really negligible. This means that we're going to an > overengineered feature with no benefits. I'm glad you feel that way. When I saw this extra checking in local_cons, I figured this is going to kill too much of the performance gain. > IMO we should make it fast rather than commonly used. Right: the extra checks shouldn't fallback to Fcons but should `abort' instead. Stefan