[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: srfi-18 and the vm
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: srfi-18 and the vm |
Date: |
Sun, 24 May 2009 00:16:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
Hi!
On Sun 24 May 2009 00:03, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I'm slightly concerned that doing things ahead of time rather than just
> in time (i.e., lazily) would have a negative impact on the interpreter's
> start-up time, which may be noticeable for short-lived scripts.
In the guile -c 0 case, we don't have this issue, because no source is
expanded; it's all compiled already. The load time on my machine is
about 20 ms, which is about equal to what we discussed before (10 ms
base + 10 ms for psyntax). It is faster than before, and will get
faster.
For loading uncompiled scripts, things will be slower, unless your
modules #:use-syntax some other transformer. I don't know where the
tradeoff is between the increased expansion speed due to compilation and
slowdown due to a complete codewalk, but it's certainly there.
OTOH I would suspect that we can implement some kind of just-in-time
compilation -- essentially for each use-modules we can check to see if
the module is compiled, and if not just compile it then and there. It
would be a little slow the first time, but after that it would load much
faster, even faster than before. Python does this. We could add a guile
--no-comp option to disable it.
> What do you think?
I think it's a good question, and we're going to have to settle on a
good answer at some point.
Cheers,
Andy.
--
http://wingolog.org/
- srfi-18 and the vm, Andy Wingo, 2009/05/22
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Julian Graham, 2009/05/22
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Ludovic Courtès, 2009/05/22
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Neil Jerram, 2009/05/23
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Andy Wingo, 2009/05/23
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Ludovic Courtès, 2009/05/23
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm,
Andy Wingo <=
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Ludovic Courtès, 2009/05/24
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Neil Jerram, 2009/05/25
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Andy Wingo, 2009/05/29
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Neil Jerram, 2009/05/30
- Re: srfi-18 and the vm, Andy Wingo, 2009/05/31