[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Compilation to native
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: Compilation to native |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:57:57 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
> I only wondered why the TODO entry favoured CCL, as it was simpler to
> try the byte code first. The changes to function calling required for
> the compiled byte code would count towards a similar effort for CCL.
As far as this TODO entry speaks about compilation, it is much
simpler to compile CCL than Emacs Lisp. And AFAIU, it suggests
first to try compiling CCL bytecode to native code as opposed
to compiling Emacs Lisp bytecode to native code.
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
- Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/11
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/20
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/21
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Miles Bader, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native,
Juri Linkov <=
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/22
- Re: Compilation to native, Richard Stallman, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, David Kastrup, 2004/03/23
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/24
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/30
- Re: Compilation to native, David Kastrup, 2004/03/30
- Re: Compilation to native, Matthew Mundell, 2004/03/31
- Re: Compilation to native, Juri Linkov, 2004/03/30