This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Byte-code compilation - good for loading.
> > * I believe a bytecode interpreter need be no slower than SCM. But
> > this is just uninformed arrogance on my part.
>
> You didn't mention using dynamic compilation in addition to a bytecode
> interpreter. Any particular reason why?
I don't really have enough experience with native code generation to
say anything helpful about it.
For example, I'm not at all sure that bytecode makes better input for
JIT compilers than the trees Guile uses now. If the bytecode is
stack-based, then the compiler has to un-stack it to rediscover the
dataflow, whereas Guile's trees are a lot like parse trees.