From unknown Thu Aug 14 18:40:28 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#35321 <35321@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#35321 <35321@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 Reply-To: bug#35321 <35321@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 01:40:28 +0000 retitle 35321 [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and B= list4 reassign 35321 emacs submitter 35321 Alex Gramiak severity 35321 wishlist tag 35321 fixed patch thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 19 10:41:52 2019 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 14:41:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44448 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUi8-0003Nb-L9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48301) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUi7-0003NM-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:51 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:53426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUi1-0007jX-Q8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34450) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUi0-0007Ue-Qy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUhz-0007h5-Ul for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:44 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]:39834) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHUhz-0007fu-NY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:41:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id e92so941847plb.6 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=FUF7vSf7c2JOH86XiLuIhHIVPnYrgn189CFYCWVpoRA=; b=bFwFa8JR4anUZCeqjHnDob9fUvrObERNa5tRECXl5LDI33o5RonCQXbtpD0PrrdzWo 8Wp7NgfzAQdHXQH75AausEBvM0vfbAOPzfuPEux00iHqHHZK3oHdw/jd1eCIZRvD1P1q voZiubELJMWyq3plMUfPGGceI0qQ9wZWArG18my9UWuNpa+egLNM+9PSG3bXzo9/z8SF 4R+QZhhpnJZfylD8q07nHvxYY9DFnRWQE3oJhsfBqqge6sASFQW+kf+Pa6Zfxi4vgsfh dfd/7tp8Sh9CShHQtFFa70F5Wtrdcy+voBj5QAlqZLRpnC2M9FN1lgM7xK5QrBIXNyEn uA2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=FUF7vSf7c2JOH86XiLuIhHIVPnYrgn189CFYCWVpoRA=; b=PhJdki7xmSKCA1sPchrGRev2/QTzfV3zj8G8Z93jHCKuMtal9VK2v7NQp5oXYNOrWu SUHi8bC7e9jCf+IGHSBpfAfyB/DrxsDDfRtLwtKHUQRcBVx2eAD3MNfv3T2JxUAIgsAR eLwgpVr/2w2cAWDGM/lW1aTtKwQrYn6cTNu7S5kJtWZApOCrofCkq3/jHNZ5E5BjpU5o 2eVb6UAhCNo9w46c8rIG0ct6TFISlTaiLRdgLTZeooXwUcPPaLMZU5dpDWLRUiVXnoz5 hN8LfVnAiAfaD+Fa3MVRPiZYcvVPxnCwJWURAV+fU2Cq1IBLuSKVOHznX91ZSYUx40C+ eExQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrFnd0h70q2sUR2s42hFCMTyV7QvCzkv4gHtuO+Fsn/qqXBokL hfonunXpUiKP/nMj5LB3qsQxYeBV X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIg8LaP9TJ/BbWozKRgYaHsCDcaOcMQZWAbHHljCpaR7c8cWqx/oAhkuMARjZQhBwQ2RPcVA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ab91:: with SMTP id f17mr4337295plr.151.1555684902210; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lylat ([2604:3d09:e37f:1500:1a72:4878:e793:7302]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i135sm6432080pgd.41.2019.04.19.07.41.40 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Gramiak To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600 Message-ID: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error that occurs in master as well). --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-patch Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-src-bytecode.c-exec_byte_code-Unroll-Blist3-and-Blis.patch Content-Description: unroll >From ba211b61d2c9e60935415f57b15511477132bccb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexander Gramiak Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:29:39 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 --- src/bytecode.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/bytecode.c b/src/bytecode.c index 40977799bf..b38c21a464 100644 --- a/src/bytecode.c +++ b/src/bytecode.c @@ -884,12 +884,12 @@ exec_byte_code (Lisp_Object bytestr, Lisp_Object vector, Lisp_Object maxdepth, CASE (Blist3): DISCARD (2); - TOP = Flist (3, &TOP); + TOP = list3 (TOP, top[1], top[2]); NEXT; CASE (Blist4): DISCARD (3); - TOP = Flist (4, &TOP); + TOP = list4 (TOP, top[1], top[2], top[3]); NEXT; CASE (BlistN): -- 2.21.0 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 19 11:09:17 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 15:09:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44473 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHV8e-00047e-VN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:09:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52525) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHV8d-00047Q-98 for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:09:15 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36101) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHV8Y-0002pj-1a; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:09:10 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3393 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hHV8X-0003K3-D8; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:09:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:08:53 +0300 Message-Id: <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Alex Gramiak In-reply-to: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Alex Gramiak on Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600) Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Alex Gramiak > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600 > > Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that > this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error > that occurs in master as well). Does this produce any tangible performance gains? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 19 16:30:18 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 20:30:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44735 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHa9J-0008AA-Ow for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:30:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f179.google.com ([209.85.215.179]:42021) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHa9H-00089v-MR for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:30:16 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f179.google.com with SMTP id p6so3091331pgh.9 for <35321@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=dAQSZZK7n13Z44q3IPhrqKc/M4lq239f9m3LOcSkeSY=; b=cSlbhZ5upoAbyqa912JXl8pB+6znSUGsaKKwXZ9lkFNqoSgqdLz8zLJ2J5QzsYxcQI aJgL70AwNGQ1ITCmGbTBmv6lOCpfFDY9XPHWsptn+Pe4c9+f06Ffxfp9Mrym73M3o5wY R2W/+I5X1oW6MOEBvzhjUDu8p8M9i1eiSUeH2sF9jKScPbBRr82NufFkF1bcDuPEbUJv DIeabI1daitW1Zp9vzge6qr3wHUEj/Co6PhRKSjqfWQROZWuicS4IM7G+nn72/E+W/9Q vv+LX6udpW4uBiGb3bo+q5z3PyHGSCdGyHvY/OJhlymNVMYdzZGM/j5YFdKXtpG1l5kQ Ej2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=dAQSZZK7n13Z44q3IPhrqKc/M4lq239f9m3LOcSkeSY=; b=FoFwo9SmFChuAmtyu1ZRRLxPlckIsY3dlo9Jyr74p5+MMMM0iw1lzN592L/mA4hGm6 3M3QziQPoBGEqDJT6GF+SgPT8+HR5Elvp2AlMbwI0wkVYmc+tjudf94aeB4ijHuR0T0X K+pmGHmrh8G6zHgsNfwkpHFkaIbCRnIgkvX+YWcOuU16pxAs8wZJvyo4JEPFqH+McO9i Rcagl56JU6stvd2JsHVEuAhjmLRjAnvSszvXaiyKOq2z3lOFjeAdtPr9JOeRc/r07o0c t2peASCS112/l9wN9ckxOI2tBMeU+kKfTfQLbpObYnc0jM/DaO98+k5Zb9pUrZjFvhLO 9A/A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWqXTB5ZfsDWJx2/nrorp2VGIug06zsOI+Lr7/+jdZPmadUBpV8 VjBGLT2alP/WJKjZnRPtwYXkV/2N X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNVYtmd72234ZkPiVliwhx86D4eC4ulBDyR79QIq8wnWZ7iZPx9t5gi5W67YLO9p+sxCVKDg== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6149:: with SMTP id o9mr5832181pgv.254.1555705809047; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lylat ([2604:3d09:e37f:1500:1a72:4878:e793:7302]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p6sm7005981pfd.122.2019.04.19.13.30.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Gramiak To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600 In-Reply-To: <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:08:53 +0300") Message-ID: <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Alex Gramiak >> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600 >> >> Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that >> this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error >> that occurs in master as well). > > Does this produce any tangible performance gains? It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess it's safer to leave it alone. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 19 16:49:38 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 20:49:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44775 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHaS1-0000A1-NO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:49:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32986) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHaS0-00009o-GI for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:49:36 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHaRv-0006hL-1d; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:49:31 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4507 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hHaRu-00088I-Hf; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:49:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0300 Message-Id: <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Alex Gramiak In-reply-to: <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Alex Gramiak on Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600) Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Alex Gramiak > Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600 > > > Does this produce any tangible performance gains? > > It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently > and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If > you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess > it's safer to leave it alone. Is there any reason other than performance to make the change? Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 19 17:31:08 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2019 21:31:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44822 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb6C-0001D8-2k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:31:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:47016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHb6A-0001CY-5e for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:31:06 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id o7so852332pll.13 for <35321@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:31:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=PH6SbT3MQikTMvKOpmtC/tbpGfPu4oqcfEuJGyAk/XQ=; b=BPzxkFJvil+FkU4BEbFm05UFY2sAK6EpIicKR/dCfodxyumYYNu/CNfQ1SBWOdsGsq S0eDYNfqAGGoF1W6a/GzBUZVwKp+GU780TryErmMifyeLtNQ2+ZNGQjRHQDU7oRm1riU 7cbPq+uwu/4Up+dI3hzNGJpLQU2f5nosPiDSk8gpJK2BDqRc473vZ2TjZoCEGYPiLp2C qGWO4OFnW72609CRfqA3asyCCKEhD+31sA2nlTeihQCEdJHSaBW3XrDUnaCzuBmYvSFb 8R3qSRSIkA1Iu/OxPX67hIeLyBFiwijK7necSwTxsnH2NiFxBYJ7ru7ksZA77JhuCHEN 2KBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=PH6SbT3MQikTMvKOpmtC/tbpGfPu4oqcfEuJGyAk/XQ=; b=chnK5QoK9z1G7YPp39GWU6i9ieBdjx4T3biLdeeg8YLThDx7/4KeKCTdu6Ht5jpPjL 45KRsGDqXNW2ABpgTJ03ErUWYQXD30D4md2Rf5wvIZbkmhgHVjGUxIapni/KDw798Dl/ TyVIbKA/HZZ62vr5I0mqQfGEYhhZ+2Akc/02yKwHi/kTWYb/VZNifJv3I4k/HnPnucZc HXus4sSU+U6NjYmh+id0/GWjCGRg198ZFpDovUSuUGUZ4wd49GnkG6fcMUgECc5xgb0P NxGju961bTUBWobEkJv92Cn4MFaJKFX1diptEa0nPvWgLrLlDThdvtk6LfczTAL93Ln1 fW/w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7SI0IdWbqPQnmmxo8PFr4+SBivltnWtbYmuTmWHJH7zLobcYW 8QmN+0aVdfy8rGdcblI+gHDs+3ng X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzgvaRmkxHNTI5Kj/LtIKlKqS6GdgYtiIheszdL2kFkFIyQJw1i/BpD1ybQ26NoNQ8i8zdUPQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a5ca:: with SMTP id t10mr6139596plq.234.1555709459947; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lylat ([2604:3d09:e37f:1500:1a72:4878:e793:7302]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm8275895pfe.188.2019.04.19.14.30.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Gramiak To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600 In-Reply-To: <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0300") Message-ID: <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Alex Gramiak >> Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600 >> >> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains? >> >> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently >> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If >> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess >> it's safer to leave it alone. > > Is there any reason other than performance to make the change? There's no functional difference, so the only remaining aspects are readability and similarity with the other BlistX cases. I suppose it loses on the readability front, and it's not much of an issue to be dissimilar to Blist2. Perhaps it's best to leave this alone after all. > Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change? They're used any time (list x y z) and (list w x y z) are byte-compiled, so I imagine they're used quite a bit. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 20 02:20:32 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2019 06:20:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45323 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHjMW-00062v-7M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:20:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40756) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHjMU-00062i-NQ for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:20:31 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:55844) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHjMO-0001p5-LZ; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:20:24 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3698 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hHjMN-0004Mv-KF; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:20:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:20:07 +0300 Message-Id: <83tvetb3l4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Alex Gramiak , Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Alex Gramiak on Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600) Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Alex Gramiak > Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Alex Gramiak > >> Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org > >> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600 > >> > >> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains? > >> > >> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently > >> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If > >> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess > >> it's safer to leave it alone. > > > > Is there any reason other than performance to make the change? > > There's no functional difference, so the only remaining aspects are > readability and similarity with the other BlistX cases. I suppose it > loses on the readability front, and it's not much of an issue to be > dissimilar to Blist2. Perhaps it's best to leave this alone after all. > > > Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change? > > They're used any time (list x y z) and (list w x y z) are byte-compiled, > so I imagine they're used quite a bit. OK, thanks. I'm undecided on this. Stefan, any comments? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 20 16:05:25 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2019 20:05:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46822 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHwEn-0003Hz-Kv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:25 -0400 Received: from pmta11.teksavvy.com ([76.10.157.34]:37702) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hHwEk-0003Hn-9j for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2HcGwD3ertc/1Tpw2hmHAMfBAeBTgKCD?= =?us-ascii?q?0UoTCESiGiESYouggwTIgGYFYF7EIRnBAIChhkkNAkOAQMBAQEEAQEBAQICAmk?= =?us-ascii?q?ohUwBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgxhS8Ppk6KKoEyAYtggX+EIz6KJQSmVgmCCpJFgXsBi?= =?us-ascii?q?WeJMS2gOoFPOYFWMxoIMIMogkSOJyaRIgEB?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2HcGwD3ertc/1Tpw2hmHAMfBAeBTgKCD0UoTCESiGiESYo?= =?us-ascii?q?uggwTIgGYFYF7EIRnBAIChhkkNAkOAQMBAQEEAQEBAQICAmkohUwBBAFWIwULC?= =?us-ascii?q?zQSFBgxhS8Ppk6KKoEyAYtggX+EIz6KJQSmVgmCCpJFgXsBiWeJMS2gOoFPOYF?= =?us-ascii?q?WMxoIMIMogkSOJyaRIgEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,375,1549947600"; d="scan'208";a="92809000" Received: from 104-195-233-84.cpe.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([104.195.233.84]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 58C8BAE303; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Stefan Monnier To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 Message-ID: References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> <83tvetb3l4.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83tvetb3l4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:20:07 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Gramiak X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) > OK, thanks. I'm undecided on this. Stefan, any comments? I don't see any reason to reject the change. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 03 04:41:42 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2019 08:41:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47655 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMTlG-0001gh-Lc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 04:41:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42874) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMTlE-0001gU-NB for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 04:41:41 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59955) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMTl9-0003N2-9q; Fri, 03 May 2019 04:41:35 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2274 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hMTl8-0002z0-Ni; Fri, 03 May 2019 04:41:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 11:41:16 +0300 Message-Id: <835zqsnd5f.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400) Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> <83tvetb3l4.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org, agrambot@gmail.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Alex Gramiak , 35321@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 > > > OK, thanks. I'm undecided on this. Stefan, any comments? > > I don't see any reason to reject the change. OK, so Alex, please go ahead, and thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jun 23 13:36:40 2019 Received: (at 35321) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2019 17:36:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54449 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Pv-0001Bz-N2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:36:39 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:44304) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Pt-0001Bi-EN for 35321@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:36:38 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Pj-0008WR-Q2; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:36:30 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4 References: <87lg0683bs.fsf@gmail.com> <831s1yc9ru.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebp91ro.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9z9bu0m.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvet7kdm.fsf@gmail.com> <83tvetb3l4.fsf@gnu.org> <835zqsnd5f.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:36:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <835zqsnd5f.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 03 May 2019 11:41:16 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Alex Gramiak , 35321@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 >> >> > OK, thanks. I'm undecided on this. S [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 35321 Cc: 35321@debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , agrambot@gmail.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Alex Gramiak , 35321@debbugs.gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400 >> >> > OK, thanks. I'm undecided on this. Stefan, any comments? >> >> I don't see any reason to reject the change. > > OK, so Alex, please go ahead, and thanks. It looks like applying the patch was forgotten, so I've now applied Alex' patch to master. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jun 23 13:36:42 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jun 2019 17:36:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54451 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Py-0001CB-2R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:36:42 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:44316) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Pu-0001Bp-Qu for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:36:39 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hf6Pq-00004q-Ks for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:36:38 +0200 Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:36:34 +0200 Message-Id: To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #35321 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 35321 fixed close 35321 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 35321 fixed close 35321 27.1 quit From unknown Thu Aug 14 18:40:28 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:24:06 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator