Re: Breaking hygiene with syntax-rules?

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

Walter Lewis <wklew@mailbox.org> writes:

>> By the way, I'm rather confused as to why you deem this caching
>> useful. A priori, I would expect a simple bytevector->pointer call
>> would be just as fast as a to-pointer call. Do you somehow create
>> lots of pointers to the contents of the same bytevector so that weak
>> references they hold incur a noticeable GC overhead?
>
> To be honest I don't know enough about C to know the performance of
> bytevector->pointer, so I was assuming Chickadee's approach was done
> for a reason.

Chickadee is pretty heavily optimized (it’s by dthompson who AFAIR once
showed millions of interacting points with Guile 3). I would expect that
the to-pointer becomes fully inlined, so it’s optimized away.

> But if you think it's not a big deal then I'm happy to
> simplify things! I think I will remove this caching for now.
>
> Thanks for your help, and Arne as well for digging into the issue.

Glad to help :-) — though I cannot yet help beyond "this looks like a
bug to me".

Best wishes,
Arne

PS: I just realized that GNU is turning 40 on Sep. 30 this year … 
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature