From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Compiler Branch Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 02:00:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87mxa0iaxj.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87wra0c0y5.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325898040 8956 80.91.229.12 (7 Jan 2012 01:00:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Noah Lavine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 07 02:00:36 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjKeB-00016N-Cb for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 02:00:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59456 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjKeA-0004BD-PB for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:00:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35893) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjKe6-0004B1-U9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:00:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjKe5-000743-C8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:00:30 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:50691 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjKe5-00073y-82 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:00:29 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6770846A; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:00:28 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=lcxEmrVTPl2e Qj0r/G6VgGjXOgQ=; b=J9512SHBgVPyPkKCvfqS1p9uGBBXg9a7c3qV3FMVhH6a B08jEBTPAj+caLlz+KtsH5Y1AFZ3RaByVqD2unKdyEN4ZqePB/Mv0gGpmoMQI+1c obhQ2sXFJKCaOUgbgD77z4ObaibbpuRmeO2g4dVz3k1mp6cjBYDPXlYm6lpJIKo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=BWRNpc DiDVzQ5rCsS74rgcuR9KUpyYXzezsnifyRCZ/mKyTwZK0GdBbVdKUc5biAMYAO1Q 8fKCot33pTzUrYt8AV2BzYqsSsueNcvIw7q4vlhvdj12YKw2KWDMpA8kL2G1ZCXX 6B+fUMCtXet91aVfWVwZBOBJqhpodGEjoJDuM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEEB8469; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:00:28 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 153098468; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:00:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Noah Lavine's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:52:16 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FD518EB4-38CA-11E1-B2A9-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13381 Archived-At: Hi Noah! On Tue 13 Dec 2011 14:52, Noah Lavine writes: >> Cool. =C2=A0As a quick reaction, I have some doubts about this project. = =C2=A0But, >> I guess a WIP branch would be a good thing to have, and it would make >> the discussion more concrete. > > Probably so. But if you have time, what are your doubts? I would much > rather talk about problems now than after I've implemented something > that we'll have to change. OK, I've taken a look at it now. I apologize for my negativity, first of all. I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but it was wrong for me to be a wet blanket about it. So sorry about that! Here is my calculus regarding this work, FWIW: it is low risk, and low cost, since it doesn't actually affect Tree-IL or any other part of the compiler. The only cost it imposes is a coupling with Tree-IL, which is easy enough to deal with on that side. So that makes me much less uneasy :-) And on the positive side, it has the potential to prove interesting things, so at this point I'm neutral about it. If it does something useful, IMO we should throw it in, when you're ready for that. Other people's opinions are welcome as well, of course. Can you describe what the branch does, currently? What do you see it doing within three months or so? How long do you intend to work on it? What do you think about the tree-il differences in master relative to stable-2.0? Do you see this work as an optional pass, or a core part of the compiler? If the latter, what sort of algorithmic complexity are you envisioning for this work? (O(n) in size of program is ideal of course.) Cheers, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/