GNU bug report logs - #15112
24.3; package.el byte compile autoloads

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 15112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>, 15112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15112: 24.3; package.el byte compile autoloads
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 05:18:36 -0500

Hi Michael,

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:

>> I made a little experiment and of course byte-compiling these files
>> gives us a ton of headaches, see below.  So I'm not sure this is all
>> worth it.  Do we have reason to believe that byte-compiling these files
>> would give any significant performance increase?
>>
>>   ELC      net/tramp-loaddefs.elc
>
> I don't know which kind of experiment you have applied, so I cannot say
> anything about the compilation errors. However, I wonder where paths
> like "net/tramp-loaddefs.elc" come from. We're speaking about
> package.el, meaning we're speaking about ELPA. Tramp in ELPA doesn't use
> any subdirectory "net".

I used this patch:

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/autoload.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/autoload.el
index 07bda537b3..e32d74fa7c 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/autoload.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/autoload.el
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ autoload-rubric
 	    ";;; Code:\n\n"
 	    (if lp
 		"(add-to-list 'load-path (directory-file-name
-                         (or (file-name-directory #$) (car load-path))))\n\n")
+                         (or (file-name-directory load-file-name)
(car load-path))))\n\n")
 	    "\n"
 	    ;; This is used outside of autoload.el, eg cus-dep, finder.
 	    (if feature
@@ -382,7 +382,6 @@ autoload-rubric
 			  (file-name-sans-extension basename))))
 	    ";; Local Variables:\n"
 	    ";; version-control: never\n"
-            ";; no-byte-compile: t\n" ;; #$ is byte-compiled into nil.
 	    ";; no-update-autoloads: t\n"
 	    ";; coding: utf-8\n"
 	    ";; End:\n"

And ran "make bootstrap".

> Anyway, I don't believe we'll see a performance boost after
> byte-compiling loaddef files. They just contain function and variable
> declarations, no implementation (but the initial values of variables).
>
> There are exceptions like in tramp-loaddefs.el, but they still don't
> count wrt performance, I believe.

This would be my guess too.  It seems like more trouble than it's worth.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.