From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Patchset related to array functions Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:28:52 +0200 Message-ID: <87shtljnhn.fsf@pobox.com> References: <7EFBBC0B-FF29-418A-96DA-D1A323B66C95@bluewin.ch> <87twfv0wvm.fsf@pobox.com> <87poqg1rj5.fsf@pobox.com> <26F2BB49-7AD1-4DEC-87F4-0C4705A27378@bluewin.ch> <878tx4ytbr.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472636067 12445 195.159.176.226 (31 Aug 2016 09:34:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:34:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-devel To: Daniel Llorens Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 31 11:34:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bf1uO-0001q7-EF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:34:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53117 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bf1uM-00024V-2e for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:34:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bf1tv-00022Q-N8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bf1ts-0003BH-Ix for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:43 -0400 Original-Received: from pb-sasl1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.66]:53704 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bf1ts-00039h-Ea for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:40 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A5931EA0; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:38 -0400 (EDT) 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; s=sasl; bh=JK2b8w266ifHP7vHD25FmiSZ0Po=; b=bbdvBt cQzMSHc2RP54rOk0ZmGz3X4l2HrF2a2t1i1wAJueR+9Iplz2Juj3f5u4PTocgE5c LmyUe5ZTx6ClbjiQU2WMKejBgNYWIeM1m8JlRWoJD2+vE4JVz9SO9abXYgNa5+O9 rFQfonoblaeZVrCW3F8XuKtFstbz450pt+yHs= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=OlgTKwVyqLzBAdRWd0fAenmnrH/ZjyvE u8uM0jYZ1lLaF87ScvmMaMbVxR5EJMQrvnE54R324YihG9t/Ipn1mSy3kM8TvUho 4fS4Te4wTRWXgMujXyzpoIqlR149qrZ55tCSbtszp+jvYtFjtQHsMMfHki4F0lgl AbSMhuLVpeg= Original-Received: from pb-sasl1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B205231E9F; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6AE331E9E; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:33:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <878tx4ytbr.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:20:56 +0200") X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FEF392AC-6F5D-11E6-AECD-CE686462E9F6-02397024!pb-sasl1.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.108.66 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:18648 Archived-At: Hi :) Hope you had a good holiday. On Thu 14 Jul 2016 20:20, Andy Wingo writes: > I think the concerns are: > > (1) Do inlined definitions get inlined? > (2) Are external definitions reified as well? > (3) Do we avoid reifying definitions in each compilation unit? > (4) Can you dlsym() an inline function? > > All these answers should be yes. No benchmarking needed, just > inspection of the build artifacts under different configurations. I want to be able to use C11 atomics in Guile, internally. I think externally as far as the interface goes we can probably upgrade to C99 given that even Emacs uses it these days. I will try to answer these four questions with GCC with C89 and C99, and if the answers are good I will upgrade to C99 first, for the build. Andy