Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

On Tue 07 Jan 2020 12:08, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> skribis:
>
>> 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?

It would be a little bytecode language, with its own versioning
considerations.  It would need to have a translation to and from
Tree-IL, though not necessarily lossless.  It would change only in
ABI-compatible ways, using the bytecode version of the Guile doing the
compilation as a proxy for what is OK to support.

A