[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: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: Native compilation by default?: Was [Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2023 08:10:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor wrote:
> 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.
I'm sure happy I read this because it made me realize despite
the mass-native compile described I still loaded the
.elc files!
Also, this makes it easier to manage, because then one don't
have to bother with paths, just `provide' every file, this can
be automated like this
(defun provide-file (&optional file)
(interactive "fFile: ")
(or file (setq file (buffer-file-name)))
(goto-char (point-min))
(let*((name (file-name-base file))
(prov (concat "\n(provide '" name ")\n") ))
(unless (re-search-forward prov (point-max) t)
(goto-char (point-max))
(insert prov)
(save-buffer) )))
and then `load' without extension.
Man, is Emacs fast or what nowadays! Huge improvement to the
interactive feel this way ...
--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal
- 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, 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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Jean Louis, 2023/02/19