At Thu, 01 Dec 2011 10:47:10 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Are struct accessor procedures inlined across modules?
Structure procedures are not inlined by the bytecode compiler, but they
are semi-inlined by the JIT. There's room for the bytecode compiler to
help the JIT generate better code, though
At Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:25:43 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Yes, that's better. I'll push a change to use a syntax property instead
> of a `begin' pattern.
>
> I won't add a macro just now, since I'm unsure of the right general
> form or whether anyone will want to use it.
Since Robby is already us
At Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:54:36 -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > (define-values ()
> > (begin
> > 'compiler-hint:cross-module-inline
> > ))
> >
> > Yes, this pattern is a hack; I don't have a better idea for the
> > annotation at the
Are struct accessor procedures inlined across modules?
(Just curious; no pressing need.)
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> The bytecode compiler now supports cross-module inlining of functions.
> As a result, for example, `empty?' and `cons?' should now perform just
> as well as `null?' and `pair?'.
Excellent!
> To avoid expanding bytecode too much, the compiler
The bytecode compiler now supports cross-module inlining of functions.
As a result, for example, `empty?' and `cons?' should now perform just
as well as `null?' and `pair?'.
To avoid expanding bytecode too much, the compiler is especially
conservative about which functions it chooses as candidates
6 matches
Mail list logo
