This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 1, 2023. It is now read-only.
proto: activate sub inlining without () proto #87
Assignees
Labels
Comments
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 2, 2018
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 25, 2018
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 18, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 1, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 30, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 12, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 24, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 26, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 27, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 1, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 2, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 2, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 25, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 17, 2019
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 19, 2020
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
rurban
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 19, 2020
See [cperl #87] We have two ways to constant fold subs. fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately. there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required () proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal representation. dropping the requirement to use the () seems 1. fair, and 2. even other prototypes should be allowed to fold if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body folds to a constant sv. WIP: but I am getting prototype mismatches CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
we have two ways to constant fold subs.
fold to a fast CONSTSUB without entersub
and fold to a dummy XS call with returning the value immediately.
there’s no semantic visibility of those 3 variants, other than the required
() proto or the usage of use constant pragma. there’s no semantic
distinction of constant folded to CONSTSUB, dummy_xs or not constant folded
subs, other than improved run-time performance and a different internal
representation.
dropping the requirement to use the () seems
if those parameters are ignored in the body, when at compile-time the body
folds to a constant sv.
branch
feature/gh87-types-protoWIP: but I am still getting prototype mismatches
CHANGE: set the proto of the created dummy XS to "" or "$" if a method.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: