> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:31:54AM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > > All in all, I think these changes are worthwhile but for the caveat > > > that it results in us having NO MORE reserved type tags left! In > > > fact, the complete change is only possible because we dropped the > > > SWIG pointer type; before that we only had two reserved types left. > > > I don't see an easy way to reclaim type tags elsewhere; we don't have > > > that many. Maybe (but only MAYBE) we could get rid of lambda info as > > > a separate core type. > > > > Maybe we can phase out the "tagged pointer" type? Having one reserved tag > > left would be a good thing, IMHO. > > By the way, you didn't go into detail about my idea to remove lambda info > as a separate type. Can you explain why (if?) this needs to be a > separate type? As far as I can tell, it's just a glorified string that > lives in the procedure decoration area. I guess it's because this would > cost us at least 3 more words per closure? (but only if lambda info is > enabled, of course)
I recall that it was slightly easier to identify the lambda-info when it's a separate type. There may be other ways to implement this, though. But it would be counterproductive to increase memory usage for lambda-information just to reduce memory usage for bignums instead (which might be less frequent thatn the former). felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
