From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [feature/native-comp] breakage on build Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:41:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87lfca7lsb.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87eehuomn2.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83lfc2px16.fsf@gnu.org> <87czxe45f8.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8335yap6p8.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnvm2nhb.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83wnvlod0k.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnvlmjxo.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83ft29nwc0.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2fzr8ve.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87ft26pxra.fsf@russet.org.uk> <877dnipqfh.fsf@russet.org.uk> <877dng988w.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83zh0chs13.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Andrea Corallo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="540"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 10 21:49:00 2021 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 1l9wQ0-000Aal-Gf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:49:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54468 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9wPz-0000S7-JW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:48:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38496) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9wIV-0005Ya-Gm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:41:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:49172) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9wIS-0000ST-Tq; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:41:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 11AKf7LL008901 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:41:08 GMT In-Reply-To: <83zh0chs13.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:16:40 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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:264340 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Andrea Corallo >> Cc: Stefan Monnier , >> Andrea Corallo via "Emacs >> development discussions." , >> Eli Zaretskii >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:44:57 +0000 >> >> Compiling a trampoline is about 0.2s each (mostly GCC gas ld startup >> time). Say we have ~1400 primitives this should translate into ~4.5 min >> of build time for something that in the average case is largely unused. > > 4.5 min out of how much? Isn't building Emacs with native-comp take a > long time anyway? IIRC the full AOT build on my dev machine (8 core 16 threads) is ~19mins. >> The trouble is that the simple code snippet I posted is not parallel and >> there's no trivial way to make make aware of all these targets to have >> it handling the parallelism. > > How about if we make the necessary assembly snippet part of the DEFUN > macro? Then compiling each .c file will produce those trampolines > ready to be used, no? (I admit that I don't really understand the > details of those trampolines, so maybe the above makes no sense.) Yes, that would be equivalent for a primitve foo to expand also something like. Lisp_Object Ffoo_trampoline (Lisp_Object arg1, Lisp_Object arg2) { return CALLN (Ffuncall, Qfoo, arg1, arg2); } At this point one need also a mechanism set the Ffoo_trampoline address in our link table when foo is redefined. One downside of this approach is that the binary is statically bloated by rarely used code. Andrea