On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:31 AM Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> wrote: > > I never said I don't want to fix Guile 2.2 bugs, and you should know > > as I spent lots and lots of time debugging #6218. I also said I > > support moving CI to 2.2, so any MR would pass against 2.2. > > > > I am just asking to not drop 1.8 support. > > > > Most of the work we do isn't actually about Guile anyway, > > > > $ git log --since 2022/01/01 | grep ^commit|wc > > 257 514 12336 > > $ git log --grep=[Gg]uile --since 2022/01/01 | grep ^commit|wc > > 7 14 336 > > I agree that the version-specific code we have (cond-expand > and GUILEV2) isn't all that much. On the other hand, I would > be glad to be able to use Guile 2 features, such as Unicode > support, when and unless, (srfi srfi-71) (let and let* > accepting multiple values), S-expression comments, > scm_c_bind_keyword_arguments, and a few others. Now > that my principal concern with the sustainability of > Guile 2 binaries (shipping bytecode with them) is cleared, > I have mixed feelings about when to leave Guile 1 behind.
You say you have mixed feelings, but I think (with your updates to compilation), those feelings are ever less mixed? > In my previous post I showed that compiling all Scheme > files can be done in 20s with Guile 2 (so a few seconds > for a single file), and 4s with Guile 3 (so near instant > for one file). Would that address your concern with > compilation speed? Thanks a ton for your investigation into this. This is a game changer: MSDM-reduced 1.8: real 0m14.788s 2.2: real 0m14.648s les-nereides: 1.8: real 0m1.376s 2.2: real 0m1.224s Let's kill 1.8 support. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
