Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Paul.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:27:36 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/26/18 11:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Emacs used to work OK on machines 10, 100 times slower than what we have 
> > today.

> That was back before Emacs did things like automatic syntax highlighting. 
> Today's Emacs would have been rejected for use on those older machines.

> Alas, we cannot assume that single-threaded computation will continue to 
> improve at the same rate it improved in the past, as the single-threaded 
> performance-vs-time curve is flattening out. See, for example:

> https://imgur.com/a/FVLjs

That's all pretty much irrelevant to the task at hand.  The fact is,
Emacs users will be using computers of a wide range of power.  Probably
as much as a factor of 10.  Compared with this, a 10%, or even a 20%
slowdown, while not being good, will hardly be noticed.

Anyhow, as far as creating a better solution than
scratch/accurate-warning-pos goes, have you had any further thoughts?

I've thought about the double interpreter idea, and must confess I've no
idea how one might go about implementing it in any reasonable time.
grep reveals approximately 6728 instances of EQ/NILP/SYMBOLP/XSYMBOL in
98 out of 132 .c files, and all of these instances are compiled in,
rather than being function calls.  Are you still serious about
implementing this?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).