Re: On elisp running native

[Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> However, I have doubts that compiling Elisp into machine code is worth
> the trouble.  And I think it is likely to be fragile.  The option
> exists of writing C code by hand.  Compiling the Elisp code would be
> quicker and avoid errors, but will that savings be realized enough
> times to justify the time used for developing and maintaining the
> compiler?  I tend to doubt it.
>
> How about compiling Elisp code into C?  That should be a lot less work,
> and it might be useful in other ways too.

Hi, to better explain.

Essentially using libgccjit means already describing C programs.

In other words instead of writing strings into a file, functions to
describe the program you want to compile have to be called.  Libgccjit
let you describe through these a program with a C-like semantic.

Regardless the programming language is written in, libgccjit API is
exactly what I would re-implement as interface to emit strings to form a
proper C file as output.

This task should be relative straight forward having all the system
already working and the the libgccjit API to copy.  But what we would
loose is the already existing libgccjit infrastructure plus we would
have to deal with files and compilation could not happen "in memory"
having to go through the file-system.

Andrea

--
akrl@sdf.org