> > I wonder, though, whether all the accessor code > > wouldn't be more compact using some fat C macros. On the > > other hand that doesn't help readability much... > > Yeah, I considered it but decided against it. >
Ok, > The function calls for checking the types could be made inlineable > if we export the symbols for the vector structure type tags. Not > sure if that's a great idea though! Mm.... yeah. > > > > Some notes/questions: > > > > > > - Could these be added to lfa2 for predicate extinguishing and > > > perhaps unboxing accessors too? How would that work? > > > > Unboxing works only for floating-point values, integers are > > not affected. > > For f32vectors or f64vectors that could still work though. We already do unboxing for the -ref variants, not for the setters, though. > > > - Should we add a special case rewrite to c-platform.scm like > > > we have rewrite-make-vector? Same here, probably total > > > overkill. > > > > I doubt all the (possible) performance improvement is > > worth the additional code + complexity. > > Yeah, probably not. Later we may decide it's worth it, we can do it then. Well, it avoids a CPS call, which is always expensive. But this rewriting code is painful... felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
