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: further guile-vm integration Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87hc9cam62.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219515275 7028 80.91.229.12 (23 Aug 2008 18:14:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 23 20:15:18 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KWxdr-0003eF-Ag for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:15:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52759 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWxct-00084u-Ic for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:14:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWxcn-00084h-JD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:14:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KWxcn-00084R-8i for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:14:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59555 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KWxcm-00084O-Rh for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38293 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KWxch-0005KX-DB; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:14:03 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F9F657D9; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:13:41 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (c-76-103-251-116.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.103.251.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C98AC657D8; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:13:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87hc9cam62.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:23:49 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 37222DC6-713F-11DD-A5AF-3113EBD4C077-02397024!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7501 Archived-At: Hi, On Fri 22 Aug 2008 12:23, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Besides, do you have an automatic compilation approach in mind (=C3=A0 la > Python) or something explicit, possibly with source/binary time-stamp > comparison? I don't know really. Currently it's explicit. But automatic could be interesting; you have to check timestamps anyway to see if the compiled file is actually older than the source file, in which case you want to warn and load the source file instead. But in general I would follow emacs' lead in this regard. > Did you benchmark the thing? I remember speed improvements were not all > that clear back when I played with Guile-VM. I've been benchmarking, yes, and the advantages are now pretty clear, at runtime, and the startup advantages are excellent. But I have yet to compile boot-9.scm. > Besides, before making a release, it may be worth thinking about > potential GO format changes that we'd possibly want to make in the > future. Sure, definitely. > One big thing I had in mind was the use of word-aligned > bytecodes, which should improve performance on several architectures Sure, would be a great thing to try. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/