[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: SHA256 performance with Guile 2.2 vs. Guile 3.0
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 23:59:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Tue 07 Jan 2020 12:08, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>>> Concretely I would add a little part of the compiler to the Tree-IL
>>> phase to serialize a bytecode for the "small" definitions in the module,
>>> for declarative modules, both public and private (because public
>>> definitions may alias private definitions).  This would be stored as a
>>> bytevector in an additional field of the module, and the program being
>>> compiled would be transformed to initialize the "lto" field (placeholder
>>> name) of the module, so that once the compiled module is loaded, we have
>>> the inlinable bindings.  I think this can be done compatibly.
>> OK, sounds great.  What are your thoughts about versioning that wire
>> Tree-IL representation?
> It would be a little bytecode language, with its own versioning
> considerations.  It would need to have a translation to and from
> Tree-IL, though not necessarily lossless.  It would change only in
> ABI-compatible ways, using the bytecode version of the Guile doing the
> compilation as a proxy for what is OK to support.

I see, that makes a lot of sense to me.  Thanks for explaining!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]