GNU bug report logs - #42147
28.0.50; pure vs side-effect-free, missing optimizations?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andrea Corallo <andrea_corallo <at> yahoo.it>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 42147-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Andrea Corallo <akrl <at> sdf.org>
Subject: bug#42147: 28.0.50; pure vs side-effect-free, missing optimizations?
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:42:11 +0000 (UTC)

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org> writes:

> 7 juli 2020 kl. 18.24 skrev Andrea Corallo <andrea_corallo <at> yahoo.it>:
>
>> Sure I'm.  The native compiler does it already but I'm curious to see
>> how you do it at source level and how generic it is.
>
> Not very, but doing it at source level has some advantages since it can enable other source-level transformations.
> It's mainly a proof of concept -- for simplicity, it doesn't attempt to be overly clever in the face of loops or setq.
>
> One snag is that because Emacs inline functions (defsubst) are inlined
> as bytecode, they are usually not amenable to source optimisations. It
> is only when a defsubst is imported from a different .el file that has
> not yet been byte-compiled that it is integrated as source, and then
> the machinery in this patch will nicely propagate constant arguments
> into the body.

Well loops and setq without CFG IMO are likely to be difficult if not
impossible to optimize in a generic way.  But I agree that having a
simple optimization done earlier is always better given it can benefit
other ones.

  Andrea

Previous Next

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