From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87pnfvjzhb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874kxcnlh8.fsf@inria.fr> <87sgkwm4uv.fsf@gnu.org> <871rse1bes.fsf@pobox.com> <875zhoex2c.fsf@gnu.org> <87mub0s6pw.fsf@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="191631"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: Guile Devel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 07 12:10:36 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iomkt-000mQl-IS for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:10:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46622 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iomkr-0000mD-0l for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:10:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35444) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iomii-0002px-BO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:08:21 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:44806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iomig-0005cx-W3; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:08:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:660:6102:320:e120:2c8f:8909:cdfe] (port=49170 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iomig-0001Il-Eo; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:08:18 -0500 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 18 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <87mub0s6pw.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:52:27 +0100") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:20238 Archived-At: Hi! Andy Wingo skribis: > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 10:47, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Andy Wingo skribis: >> >>> With cross-module inlining of "small" definitions, I think we would >>> solve a lot of this kind of problem. I think we could add this during >>> 3.0 and for this reason I would hesitate to apply this patch for 3.0 >>> because it changes "fx+" exports to be macros rather than "normal" >>> values in the ABI. WDYT? >> >> I agree that cross-module inlining is the better fix whereas this patch >> is the immediate workaround. >> >> Are you confident that cross-module inlining can happen be added without >> introducing incompatibilities over in the 3.0 series? (At first sight >> it seems tricky to me, notably because we=E2=80=99d have to store Tree-I= L in >> object files, which introduces compatibility and thus external >> representation versioning considerations.) > > Concretely I would add a little part of the compiler to the Tree-IL > phase to serialize a bytecode for the "small" definitions in the module, > for declarative modules, both public and private (because public > definitions may alias private definitions). This would be stored as a > bytevector in an additional field of the module, and the program being > compiled would be transformed to initialize the "lto" field (placeholder > name) of the module, so that once the compiled module is loaded, we have > the inlinable bindings. I think this can be done compatibly. OK, sounds great. What are your thoughts about versioning that wire Tree-IL representation? >> If you do, then it=E2=80=99s fine to drop this patch. If conversely >> cross-module inlining might take longer, then we can have this patch in >> and drop it in 3.2. Your call! (I guess I=E2=80=99m not being that hel= pful >> here. :-)) > > :) > > I hesitate to land this patch because we haven't shown that it > significantly helps things, it would need to be undone, and it makes the > ABI more fragile. So if that's OK let's do nothing :) Alright, fine with me! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.