[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: FW: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:31:28 +0200 |
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:14:14 +0000
>
> > If you want to load "the most efficient option available", then just
> > don't specify any extension, and Emacs will load the `.el`, `.elc`,
> > or `.eln` file according to what it finds.
>
> Again, please point that out explicitly (though this
> one will be familiar to longtime Emacs users, as the
> same logic has long existed for *.el and *.elc).
The logic has existed, but none of the doc strings of 'load',
'load-file', and 'load-library' says anything about it. Neither does
the manual. What is different here?
- 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, 2023/02/26
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/02/26
- RE: [External] : Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Drew Adams, 2023/02/26