Re: On elisp running native - Update 12

[T.V Raman]

Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org> writes:

SG!

to be honest I never could remember the difference between cl-declaim
and cl-proclaim when I used Common Lisp heavily.
You said you'd handle the compilation speed, assume that automatically
sets the highest level of optimization?

I built the native-emacs branch earlier this morning and  did a few
timing tests by having EWW render some large epub files, I didn't notice
much difference in timing.
> "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Andrea,
>
> Hi!
>
>> This looks awesome.
>>
>> A couple of questions:
>>
>> Now that you handle the optimization declarations from cl, could you
>> also handle cl-declaim of the same  --- typically used in CL at
>> top-level / start-of file?
>>
>>
>> (cl-declaim (optimize (safety 0) (speed 3)))
>
> ATM `cl-declaim' (as `cl-proclaim') are not effective regarding the
> speed parameter of the native compiler.  To a quick look to the
> HyperSpec I guess `cl-declaim' should just set `comp-speed' other than
> what is already doing, shall do it.
>
>> 2. In your example for advising primitives, you show the generate
>>    dfunction as
>>    (defun --subr-trampoline-delete-file (filename &optional trash)
>>    (funcall filename trash))
>>
>>    Should the above check if delete-file was called interactively, and
>>    if yes, in turn call funcall-interactively?
>
> Interesting, I think should be fine like it is now as Lisp code is
> calling explicitly `funcall-interactively' anyway.
>
>   Andrea

-- 
?7?4 Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  ?0?8