On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Thinking more globally, there are some more issues -- one is that
> ideally we need call-site specialization. A GF could be highly
> polymorphic globally but monomorphic for any given call site. We need
> away to specialize.
>
Yes, but I ima
On Tue 09 Jan 2018 15:30, Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> Maybe this is all completely obvious to you, but I want to remind,
> again, about the plans and ideas I had for GOOPS before I had to leave
> it at its rather prototypical and unfinished state:
>
> As you recall, generic functions (GFs) then ca
I'm aware that something similar can be achieved by different approaches.
But, note how these IMs are a nice compromise between two extremes: 1.
doing no inlining at all, leaving all function calls intact or 2. inlining
absolutely everything.
Of course such an IM based scheme could be supplemente
Hi,
Hi think this is a marvelous development and, for what it's worth, in the
right direction. Many, many thanks!
Maybe this is all completely obvious to you, but I want to remind, again,
about the plans and ideas I had for GOOPS before I had to leave it at its
rather prototypical and unfinished
Hey all!
This is an update along the road to Guile 3. Check
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2017-11/msg00016.html for
the previous entry.
Since 25 November there have been around 100 commits or so. Firstly I
merged in patches from stable-2.0, including patches corresponding to
th
