Dear Gaby, > On 22 Mar 2008 11:50:34 +0100, Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
> > Do you know, or can you point me to, the place where SPADreplace is used? > > Up to now I thought the lisp compiler would just compile the code.lsp > > files, but how would it make use of the SPADreplace property then? > > see the functions `optSpecialCall' and `opitimize' in src/interp/g-opt.boot. many thanks, that was very helpful. I particularly like )lisp (setq $|reportOptimization| t) !!! Although I should be rather doing other stuff, I can't wait to see if I find a way to produce better optimizations. (and I should admit that I'm rather pessimistic, because I know next to nothing about compilers...) > The irony of insisting on Lisp is that no matter what you've done to inform > the translator about the behaviour of your Spad programs, you have to be > untrusted just as anybody else who did not go through the pain of writing a > strongly, statically, typed program. No amount of hacks would restore back > the efficiency lost in translating to such a poorly performing machine. Sorry, I do not understand. It'd be interested if you could expand on that. Are you pointing to a general problem created by introducing an intermediate step when compiling, i.e., SPAD -> Lisp -> machine code vs. SPAD -> machine code (with sbcl, we do not create intermediate C code, I believe) or do you think that it would be easier to optimize SPAD -> C -> machine code? Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
