Hi Neil,
Note: I reply to messages in order of least difficulty. ;-)
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> For these reasons, we may want to merge this patch in `master' as
>> well.
>
> Yes, I think so.
Noted, will do.
>> 2. The second step does the act
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> In the BDW-GC branch, I committed these two pairs of patches:
>
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commitdiff;h=c891a40e9fc5f718bfaf6e70f8fd0b19311d14a6
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=commitdiff;h=474554694f56
Dudes and dudettes. Statprof works for profiling guile-vm. If you ask
me, that's pretty sweet.
Here's a profile of loading (oop goops). It's long because, well,
syncase... also I had to increase the sampling frequency because
otherwise the results were really unstable.
scheme@(guile-user)> (u
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello!
>
> The `bdw-gc-static-alloc' branch now contains an implementation of
> statically allocated subrs. This was done in 2 steps:
>
> 1. Using double-cells instead of single-cells for subrs [0]. The
> patch is quite nice in that it simplifies `
Hi Julian,
Julian Graham writes:
> Find attached a small patch that fixes a few instances of a typo in
> the documentation for SRFI-11 -- the manual was incorrectly referring
> to `let*-values' as `let-values*'.
Applied, thanks!
Ludo'.
Hello Andy!
Thanks for all the good news!
Andy Wingo writes:
> * I think there's something publishable in all of this language tower
> business, but I'd need a convincing second high-level language. I
> think JavaScript is the right one. We need to write a compiler to
> GHIL, and
Greets greets,
An update from the wilds of the vm branch is overdue. So here we go:
* Opcodes are now numbered statically in the source. This should make
it easier to maintain bytecode compatibility in the future.
* The VM now has two new languages:
- Bytecode, which is just object code
Hello Ken,
[Cc: guile-devel.]
Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 16:43, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I ran `gcbench.scm' with both BDW-GC branches and didn't observe any
>> significant difference. The benefits are that (i) initialization
>> should
>> be slightly faster, and (ii) running se
