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: Is compiling autoloads useful? Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:12:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20193.57279.774332.141767@gargle.gargle.HOWL> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323439982 6387 80.91.229.12 (9 Dec 2011 14:13:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Roland Winkler" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 09 15:12:58 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ1C3-000503-Tu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:12:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58194 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ1C3-000824-7E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:12:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46043) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ1C0-00081Q-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:12:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ1Bz-00077u-9L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:12:52 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:34562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ1Bz-00077l-3D; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:12:51 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EANIW4k5FpY2M/2dsb2JhbABDqniBBoFyAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiBq2FItyBIgwmjSEUQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,326,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="151583953" Original-Received: from 69-165-141-140.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.141.140]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 09:12:50 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 4CF0B660E9; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:12:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20193.57279.774332.141767@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (Roland Winkler's message of "Fri, 9 Dec 2011 04:15:27 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 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:146602 Archived-At: > The Makefile used by the rather old BBDB v2 compiles the file > with BBDB autoloads. Does such a step offer any advantage with a > recent version of GNU Emacs? It all depends on what gets put in there. But if you only get calls to `autoload' and a few calls to `add-to-list', byte-compilation should not make any difference to the speed of the code. Some people have reported that byte-compiling their .emacs makes a measurable difference to their Emacs's startup time, tho, so there might some advantage, but I must say I don't know where it comes from (it must be linked to the way the file is loaded rather than to the actual evaluation; maybe some decoding overhead or something like that). Stefan