unofficial mirror of guile-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@gentoo.org>
Cc: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>,
	Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>, Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>,
	Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org>,
	guile-devel <guile-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Elisp lexical-let
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:13:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090723161313.GA1405@fibril.netris.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A6880AE.9070600@gentoo.org>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 05:24:30PM +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> For the calls above all the dynamic accesses can be determined statically.
> Lexical accesses can always be determined statically. Thus all accesses in this
> example can be determined statically and can be compiled to a location
> dereference (either read or write). Nothing in the semantics is inherently
> inefficient.

There is at least one inherent loss of efficiency with the semantics
you propose: with a lexical-let binding, the compiler can determine
statically whether the variable is non-mutable, because the only place
it could possibly be set! is within the lexical scope.  Non-mutable
variables can safely be inlined, an especially important optimization,
especially if the value is a procedure.

Also, with lexical-let, the compiler knows statically the entire set
of references, which can be helpful with many analyses, for example
whether continuations or closures can "escape" a particular scope,
whether a particular continuation might be invoked more than once,
etc.

    Regards,
      Mark




  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-23 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-21 19:48 Elisp lexical-let Daniel Kraft
2009-07-21 21:46 ` Ken Raeburn
2009-07-22  9:11   ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-22 13:00     ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-22 19:24       ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 15:24         ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-23 16:13           ` Mark H Weaver [this message]
2009-07-23 20:53             ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-23 17:05           ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-24 11:09             ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2009-07-22 20:50     ` Ken Raeburn
2009-07-23 10:47       ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 20:56         ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-24  6:50           ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-23 20:49     ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-23 22:39 ` Andy Wingo
2009-07-24  7:08   ` Daniel Kraft
2009-07-24 11:42     ` Andy Wingo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090723161313.GA1405@fibril.netris.org \
    --to=mhw@netris.org \
    --cc=d@domob.eu \
    --cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=hkBst@gentoo.org \
    --cc=neil@ossau.uklinux.net \
    --cc=raeburn@raeburn.org \
    --cc=wingo@pobox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).