From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: indirect threading for bytecode interpreter Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1253220185 16371 80.91.229.12 (17 Sep 2009 20:43:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:43:05 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 17 22:42:58 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MoNof-0002j8-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:42:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58752 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MoNoe-00020f-J4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:42:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MoNnL-0001Ly-9A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:41:35 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MoNnG-0001Ja-K0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:41:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47275 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MoNnG-0001JV-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:41:30 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:50383) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MoNnF-0006Ft-T5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:41:30 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MoNnC-0002Jw-U7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:26 +0200 Original-Received: from 212.46.176.32 ([212.46.176.32]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:26 +0200 Original-Received: from eller.helmut by 212.46.176.32 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:41:26 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.46.176.32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pe86m54WVsoLHP4eyMqjA5fb6T8= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:115431 Archived-At: * Tom Tromey [2009-09-17 21:38+0200] writes: >>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Eller writes: > > Helmut> Despite that, a few years ago somebody has already proposed that > Helmut> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2004-05/msg00095.html > Helmut> and it wasn't deemed worthwhile back then. > > That is not my take on that thread. It just sort of petered out with no > results. I didn't see any actual objection. Hmm.. maybe I'm misremembering something. But then such a change introduces quite a bit of clutter and it's not so clear how much speedup is required to justify that. 5% doesn't sound like a lot to some people. Well, at least not to me. :-) vmgen sounds like a good idea, but I fear that it makes the build process quite a bit more complicated. I'm wondering why gcc can't perform this transformation from the switch based code. Is there no compiler setting to skip the range check in the switch statement? Quite bizarre, considering C's philosophy of skipping safety checks. > Also, the Emacs project has a problem with losing patches. > This is the second time I've reimplemented something only to find that a > nearly identical patch has been sitting in the archives for years. Looks like it. Maybe things are better now with the bug tracker. Helmut