- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
> 'f' is called. optimize_compiled_function munches the string and
> replaces it with a (newly allocated) opaque.
Then this is wrong. We must strive for readonlyness. Is there any
reason we cannot call optimize_compiled_function on all functions
just before dumping?
optimize_compiled_function() is supposed to be lazy. Doing all that
works (and allocating all that data) for a bunch of functions that
might not get called could be perceived as wasteful.
Martin could probably offer a more coherent comment on that.
Martin Buchholz
Monday, 25 October
Mon, 25 Oct
6:31 p.m.
New subject: Unmark pdumped objects
>>>> "Hrv" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Hrv> Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
> Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
>
>
> > 'f' is called. optimize_compiled_function munches the string and
> > replaces it with a (newly allocated) opaque.
>
> Then this is wrong. We must strive for readonlyness. Is there any
> reason we cannot call optimize_compiled_function on all functions
> just before dumping?
Hrv> optimize_compiled_function() is supposed to be lazy. Doing all that
Hrv> works (and allocating all that data) for a bunch of functions that
Hrv> might not get called could be perceived as wasteful.
Hrv> Martin could probably offer a more coherent comment on that.
I believe that when I implemented this, dumped compiled function
objects had already had optimize_compiled_function called for them
prior to dumping. So only functions read into the executable image at
runtime would be lazily optimized.
Martin
Olivier Galibert
Tuesday, 26 October
Tue, 26 Oct
1:25 a.m.
New subject: Unmark pdumped objects
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:31:08AM -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I believe that when I implemented this, dumped compiled function
objects had already had optimize_compiled_function called for them
prior to dumping. So only functions read into the executable image at
runtime would be lazily optimized.
This is not, though, what is happening right now. I don't think I
touched anything in that area, though.
OG.
Martin Buchholz
Tuesday, 26 October
Tue, 26 Oct
3:17 a.m.
New subject: Unmark pdumped objects
>>>> "OG" == Olivier Galibert
<galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
OG> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:31:08AM -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I believe that when I implemented this, dumped compiled function
> objects had already had optimize_compiled_function called for them
> prior to dumping. So only functions read into the executable image at
> runtime would be lazily optimized.
OG> This is not, though, what is happening right now. I don't think I
OG> touched anything in that area, though.
OG> OG.
I note that optimize_compiled_function() is declared in bytecode.h,
yet only used in bytecode.c. I am so incredibly pedantic that this is
a good sign that optimize_compiled_function() *used* to be called in
some other C file. Check out a pre-pdump version of XEmacs, circa
Feb. 1999, and I think you'll find that reading in a compiled_function
object would always optimize it if about to dump, probably in alloc.c,
perhaps in make-byte-code.
Martin
Olivier Galibert
Tuesday, 26 October
Tue, 26 Oct
4:51 a.m.
New subject: Unmark pdumped objects
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 07:17:01PM -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I note that optimize_compiled_function() is declared in bytecode.h,
yet only used in bytecode.c. I am so incredibly pedantic that this is
a good sign that optimize_compiled_function() *used* to be called in
some other C file. Check out a pre-pdump version of XEmacs, circa
Feb. 1999, and I think you'll find that reading in a compiled_function
object would always optimize it if about to dump, probably in alloc.c,
perhaps in make-byte-code.
I'm impressed.
DEFUN ("make-byte-code", Fmake_byte_code, 4, MANY, 0, /*
[...]
if (purify_flag)
{
[...]
optimize_compiled_function (fun);
bump_purestat (&purestat_opaque_instructions,
pure_sizeof (f->instructions));
}
Here is the commit:
1.42.2.9 Thu Apr 22 7:27:14 1999 by hrvojen
Branch: release-21-2
Diffs to 1.42.2.8
Committed Olivier's mega patch from <19990405154713.A41774(a)frodo.loria.fr>.
Hence it has gone with my killer blow on the purespace code. Well, I
don't think I have a "in the dumping" flag handy enymore, but it is
easy enough to add. Hvroje seems to think that the space expansion
due to the systematic use of o-c-f may be a problem, though.
Comments?
OG.
8958
days inactive
8959
days old
4 comments
3 participants
tags (0)
participants (3)
-
Hrvoje Niksic -
Martin Buchholz -
Olivier Galibert