From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile 1.8.9 release Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:17:59 -0500 Message-ID: <8735y3tvmw.fsf@gnuvola.org> References: <87zh18o4z7.fsf@gnuvola.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: Guile Devel To: Han-Wen Nienhuys Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 10 23:36:51 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-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 1l9y6N-0000Ph-0v for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 23:36:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44746 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9y6L-0004ew-Uv for guile-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:36:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58306) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9xoh-0004U5-SA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:18:37 -0500 Original-Received: from se26.mailspamprotection.com ([35.192.135.139]:59007 helo=delivery.mailspamprotection.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9xoc-0006AU-4A for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:18:35 -0500 Original-Received: from 241.110.209.35.bc.googleusercontent.com ([35.209.110.241] helo=giow1035.siteground.us) by se26.mailspamprotection.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l9xoS-000Fae-JG; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:18:22 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnuvola.org ; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0g3BMF6wVC+KKGgvDZ494k34BlBZlpI25Zik8fmGTow=; b=f+qQYfBYpbQoUsa0hMYVcKcXEO RMSTH6FuWGvsMlYRZBNkcpdxeyD8a4TUMuUo4JkUqBMzuICT1BBP40JjJ/e/DKgjDDALpEuqah6E8 8JMWKNvegMZzlP936f6eGx8JlHuSnFBGYlolF55F4SmVeeCOT6kyoC5QKcMFCH/hagYc=; Original-Received: from [50.89.166.226] (port=53166 helo=miasma) by giow1035.siteground.us with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90.1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9xoI-000L9m-OC; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 00:18:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Han-Wen Nienhuys's message of "Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:59:07 +0100") X-Originating-IP: 35.209.110.241 X-SpamExperts-Domain: giow1035.siteground.us X-SpamExperts-Username: 35.209.110.241 Authentication-Results: mailspamprotection.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=35.209.110.241@giow1035.siteground.us X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.06) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9EzEpkmgGJQbYxfXlJDlCAPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5wLMKvAX75+Htl0sAhZwIIPyPSQ9gYMyd1u1C9uZvGj9eF8 uDI3O7EjRgnXURM7VeA+6ZTz1zw5rFxYuanvKekS/+RAROrQDKTZ+2TXi9pJOdqwTTJhLChIm0ME lNcQXjgoDPIpDsKwoyTIui+AiRJLWauPpaqySAuFisxAx2J3hs/aBRC/dJUEjVcdL1455UKM1Eca nx/3vcvwI0DlqHUgLv/585O+pWpOKIzg2yRxxNDmYKL8s+6Z1AYc3vFe/OX2bBIZ81oGZp+J9MlI wzA4fvkgd5+u3gDxf9fK2r/ZwdyM1Zhj0mHCNz8fhItVlE4hj15KaSzeVcb+tI7MD/LT6/sFSf/d 7xGR5Uo27lYS3YVJeYyvjh+nZKOvEfpZK59x3dBtceKX2dWiEm+7oHm9xBEeGmns8QeFADnQDTrf rpdwLAwbo48OxgoIF1f8KUxbO+uWqv+yIXuSaTRGCFbDjMhpwyKUnIZXKOkSA6DYP9lqtiJ2RkF0 cIKeA4r3qcrDeo2F/515C8kJ0QodJwfrmFGs5lmow6gOzU/CbOds0gEiRQv+PVjjwa+Z5RFCOMS2 lEhwUrQ4XutDfLrvHJcXSguV0TqC9t5Bx9sBk0JPuY0oGESZVP8kVwfElZ3Z/6oUNVJP/N4rGD+o y4WKor01lrVEnfyrbRVyPEzEd7XciYOH/+VxnGGHF4WYzAtjc/zXZqydOm8xl4qQwq5ML5qMh1D5 dE/4nzR0LRj5v8EKKp1hBUvSSq5Jd X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine1.mailspamprotection.com Received-SPF: pass client-ip=35.192.135.139; envelope-from=ttn@gnuvola.org; helo=delivery.mailspamprotection.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20662 Archived-At: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable () Han-Wen Nienhuys () Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:59:07 +0100 > Thanks. It turns out my previous fix introduced ABI > breakage, so I reworked it to not change function > signatures or struct sizes. It's also split up in more > parts, so it becomes easier to understand. Please see > here: [...] Any news here? Can I do anything to get this fix in? IIUC, the second iteration achieves the same goals as the first one (i.e., reducing unnecessary allocation by refining the heap monitoring machinery). Is that correct? (What am i missing?) I would be happy to commit the second patch, if you could refine it to add the extensive explanation of the first. (You could even mention the first approach, as an interesting but misguided dead end.) That way, we have a full record. I would be extremely happy to commit a test along w/ the change, if we can figure that out. But it's not critical (we can do it later). Re testing, i don't know how to go about setting up a test to avoid regressions. (IIUC, this is a performance-related change and not a functionality-related one.) Any ideas? =2D-=20 Thien-Thi Nguyen ----------------------------------------------- (defun responsep (query) ; (2021) Software Libero (pcase (context query) ; =3D Dissenso Etico (`(technical ,ml) (correctp ml)) ...)) 748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA =2D-------------------------------------- 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iG4EARECAC4WIQR0jqDoHLinSJv6bORnAyIkTIB1AgUCYCRbmhAcdHRuQGdudXZv bGEub3JnAAoJEGcDIiRMgHUCjS4AoNq3oSUedCfhhb0DJTp8w8zdjdQBAJ4/7pbg ZhMT1cAOKafGg354Qrz6wQ== =6zrK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--