[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 %
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2023 08:27:34 +0200 |
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 23:32:43 -0500
> From: Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor
> <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
>
> > The only form which works seems to be when load is called with a full
> > pathname after omitting the ".el" or ".elc" suffix provided there is an
> > elc at that location.
>
> It should also work if you just (load "fib"), assuming `fib.el(c)` is
> found somewhere along your `load-path`.
Right. And '(require 'fib)' will also work, in the sense that a
native compilation will happen if needed, and fib.eln file will be
loaded if available or after producing it.
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, (continued)
- Re: Native compilation by default? (was: Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp), Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/23
- Re: Native compilation by default? (was: Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp), Jean Louis, 2023/02/23
- Re: Native compilation by default? (was: Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp), Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/22
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Madhu, 2023/02/25
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Stefan Monnier, 2023/02/25
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Emanuel Berg, 2023/02/27
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Madhu, 2023/02/27