[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 06:15:29 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor wrote:
>> (byte-compile-file "fib.el" t) ; doesn't work
>> (load-file "fib.elc") ; doesn't work
>> (load "/dev/shm/fib.elc" nil nil t) ; doesn't work
>
> We want the users to be able to load a `.elc` file even if
> a `.eln` file has been generated. The way the users do that
> is by giving to `load` the file name *with* the `.elc`
> extension. Of course, they can also load the `.eln` file by
> specifying that file explicitly as well.
Yes.
> 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.
Cool!
>> 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`.
Again cool.
--
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, 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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp, Jean Louis, 2023/02/19