From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: (set! (@@ MOD NAME) EXP) considered harmful Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:40:51 +0100 Message-ID: <878wgcdm0c.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <877hwhqq2g.fsf@netris.org> <873a6nykap.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <871vm52p4o.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1253306496 18507 80.91.229.12 (18 Sep 2009 20:41:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 18 22:41:29 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MokGh-0004ES-J3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:41:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43781 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MokGh-00067v-2Z for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:41:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MokGO-0005tq-Km for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:41:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MokGJ-0005mU-Oj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:41:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58498 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MokGJ-0005mI-BO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:40:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:33277) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MokGF-00045J-Ai; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:40:55 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-147-112-99.range86-147.btcentralplus.com [86.147.112.99]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E748B1F68F7; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:40:54 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from arudy (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3996438023; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:40:52 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:29:59 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9351 Archived-At: Andy Wingo writes: > On Fri 18 Sep 2009 00:16, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=A8=A8s) writes: > >> Perhaps the compiler should make it possible to choose a tradeoff >> between dynamicity and performance, e.g., by actually honoring the =A1= =AE:O=A1=AF >> compile option? > > Sure, sounds good to me. Yes, that would be great. In practice I think it's clear that most people will want a dynamicity-compatible optimization level while they're developing or debugging a program, but the best possible optimization, and needing no dynamicity, when that program is deployed. Neil