Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:2443 comp.sys.ti.explorer:150
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!spice.cs.cmu.edu!jwz
From: jwz@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Jamie Zawinski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.sys.ti.explorer
Subject: inlining
Message-ID: <7077@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 89 20:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@teak.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 18


On the Explorer, it's not possible to compile a function inline unless it's
source code is around.  That is, if function A wants to declare function B
inline, the code will not appear inline unless function A is compiled in the
compilation environment of function B.  If function B was loaded from a
compiled file, recompiling function A will not inline function B.

Is there a good reason for this?  I assume by this behavior that (on the
Explorer) inlining a function involves a source-level transformation and
recompilation; but it seems to me that it should be possible to just splice
in a code vector, after some trivial disassembly to move the jump pointers.

One way around this problem is to use DEFSUBST instead, but this has a few
problems, being 1: it's not common lisp, 2: Defsubst doesn't spawn a new
lexical environment, encouraging obscure bugs, and 3: the Explorer defsubst
expansion code is a little buggy.

		-- Jamie