[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compilation to native
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: Compilation to native |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:57:23 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:50:39PM +0000, Matthew Mundell wrote:
> > Yes, this would require implementing an optimizing Lisp compiler
> > which is a tremendous task.
>
> The byte compiler already does some optimisation. Surely the
> combination of byte compiler and compilation to native heads towards
> an optimising Lisp compiler?
I don't think the current byte compiler would be a practical base from which
to build a real optimizing compiler, it's a huge mess.
[And of course, for an optimizing compiler, you _really_ want to use lexical
binding, so help me with my emacs--lexbind branch!]
-Miles
--
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over. --Ian Wolff
- Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/11
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/20
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/21
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, David Kastrup, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/30
- Re: Compilation to native, David Kastrup, 2004/03/30