From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@kvast.blakulla.net>
Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se, Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de>,
guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: expansion, memoization, and evaluation...
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 08:07:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xy765uaw9d7.fsf@linnaeus.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8765uah1fe.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:07:33 -0600")
Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@kvast.blakulla.net> writes:
>
>> In the on-line (interpreter) case the types are retrieved from the
>> arguments and the rewrite rules depend on knowing the bindings of
>> variables in the source. Yes, this is equivalent to what the current
>> goops source does, although the only optimization which is done
>> currently is supplying a "next-method" efficiently.
>
> You may have already said this, but if the method is called later with
> "different types", then does it have to notice that and recompute?
No, that copy of the compiled code will never be called with anything
but the types it's compiled for.
> Any chance some alternate optimization might be easier when you're
> doing offline compilation? Unfortunately I don't know enough about
> what goops is already doing to comment very concretely yet, but I
> can imagine that you might be able to get similar performance with
> an alternate approach when you can control the object code you're
> emitting.
Hmm... What do you mean by "control the object code"? Surely, there
is nothing about what I've said about goops which prevents the
optimizations in the "alternate approach" from being done? Maybe
there's a misunderstanding here: Goops gives source back to the
compiler. The compiler then can continue to do whatever optimizations
it chooses to, and also has full control over the object code it's
emitting.
Best regards,
Mikael
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-04 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-04 2:41 expansion, memoization, and evaluation Rob Browning
2002-12-04 2:57 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2002-12-04 3:10 ` Rob Browning
2002-12-04 3:31 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2002-12-04 4:07 ` Rob Browning
2002-12-04 7:07 ` Mikael Djurfeldt [this message]
2002-12-04 21:11 ` Rob Browning
2002-12-04 21:47 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2002-12-05 0:07 ` Rob Browning
2002-12-05 16:27 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-12-05 17:07 ` Rob Browning
2002-12-04 8:09 ` klaus schilling
2002-12-04 10:55 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xy765uaw9d7.fsf@linnaeus.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me \
--to=mdj@kvast.blakulla.net \
--cc=dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de \
--cc=djurfeldt@nada.kth.se \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).