On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:08:04PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Thanks folks, this is a very nice improvement.
>
> I've applied a combination of these two patches that includes the
> C_i_foreign_integer_argumentp case but leaves the fallback behaviour
> alone. As Lemon says, this pass doesn't do un
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:08:04PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > I suppose now would be a good time to discuss whether we should (1) add
> > any warnings to this pass, for example when one of these FFI arguments
> > is known to have the w
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:08:04PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> > > I suppose now would be a good time to discuss whether we should (1) add
> > > any warnings to this pass, for example when one of these FFI arguments
> > > is known to
On 2017-07-17 9:43, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Also, should we wait until 5.1 with this? Considering we've made so
> many changes already, it makes sense to let things settle before enabling
> these optimizations. That way, i
Thanks Peter, I've applied this as it is. I agree with Lemon that we
should dry up the repeated naming logic, but for now I think we can live
with the duplication in order to keep things moving.
The patch wasn't quite careful enough with regards to bootstrapping,
however, and caused some problems
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:55:21AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Thanks Peter, I've applied this as it is. I agree with Lemon that we
> should dry up the repeated naming logic, but for now I think we can live
> with the duplication in order to keep things moving.
>
> The patch wasn't quite careful e
