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: wip-rtl native closure creation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:00:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87y5lsp43k.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87ehnkqsbz.fsf@pobox.com> <501F90DE.8030702@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344258065 25777 80.91.229.3 (6 Aug 2012 13:01:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Sjoerd van Leent =?utf-8?Q?Priv=C3=A9?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 06 15:01:03 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SyMvf-0006JA-0p for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:01:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36441 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SyMve-0004ZB-7N for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56306) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SyMvX-0004Z5-HF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:00:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SyMvT-00061c-4s for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:00:55 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:48181 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SyMvT-00061Y-0R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:00:51 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF159466; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:00:50 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=1XTbXtsByEl9 wBAVoD8bquFE0EM=; b=it1FOl3wNnTa4abtKrxUMjP8vLawx6o1sSOI0mxO5Yvm Td8CRH5zAQNwwx5/AQbphAdr9UtyvycVniD41wCJrfNQ3r8h2GZ685toAIW8vmtG 3hdJ6hBSc/827a9HT+qlKvtkOu6o0BSDoMKVXn79TPhFlPk5+eEWACHdwHHucjc= 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=fd3Ig0 xeLkviem88T+LiW0z5j7GxabTmlMzN/hDL47BFfXKp2p8mDHrUxwlSyNGTAtnpXX 9KuS2+1nRtcRNn39WVS8C0UWf/QKzZwHuld8PpF9Kzl9PZpW4w2vzVcMIA9JUts8 6TRvQvBqJg0vK6h32Y68kmzUz8iLIhCHIOgXM= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDAD9465; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [89.131.176.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A52659464; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:00:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <501F90DE.8030702@gmail.com> ("Sjoerd van Leent =?utf-8?Q?Pri?= =?utf-8?Q?v=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:39:42 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BEF5A68E-DFC6-11E1-891A-11610E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 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:14780 Archived-At: On Mon 06 Aug 2012 11:39, Sjoerd van Leent Priv=C3=A9 = writes: > Wouldn't it be feasible in the future that there might be, because of > more memory, other designs, such as caching, which create much more > closures than current designs? I don't know, but on 64-bit platforms > (and perhaps even architectures with a larger bus), it seems to me that > it is necessary to stick to this bus length. I think the short answer is "no". The long answer: although in the execution of a program there may be a practically unbounded number of closures, there is only a finite number of source locations, and multiple closures for a given source location share code. (Modulo optimization and inlining and such things.) So a 32-bit relative offset from a compilation unit's bytecode to native code will be sufficient for at least, I dunno, a decade or so -- until maybe we don't have bytecode at all any more. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/