[Gcl-devel] Re: si::proper-list type propagation

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Robert Boyer <address@hidden> writes:

> > Safety requires some sort of no-side-effects property to compiled functions
> 
> Fortran 66 tried to impose the notion that all functions had no side effects
> at all!  This permitted all sorts of compiler expression optimization, e.g.,
> commutativity and constant folding.  It is a mystery to me why Lisp has never
> had a (PROCLAIM '(NO-SIDE-EFFECTS foo)) declaration.  It clearly should, to
> get better compiled code, considering it is sooo... applicative, sometimes,
> anyway.
> 
> Concerning passing the return value via the register, I can remember that the
> first time I met rms, at MCC, in about 1986, he looked at some KCL output and
> said he could see how to make the then brand new GCC do a much better job for
> Lisp.  I suspect a better job, including better use of registers, is going to
> be needed if GCL is going to catch up with OCAML!  And the 64 bit X86 has so
> many extra registers, it is a natural thing to contemplate.
> 

Indeed.  Did not know we were so far behind OCAML, BTW.  If anyone
ever comes across an example function which shows this weakness
clearly, I'd be most interested.   Such examples are key to remedying
whatever situation may exist.

Take care,



> Bob
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah