Re: Compilation to native

[Matthew Mundell]

Juri Linkov <address@hidden> writes:

> > I only wondered why the TODO entry favoured CCL, as it was simpler to
> > try the byte code first.  The changes to function calling required for
> > the compiled byte code would count towards a similar effort for CCL.
>
> As far as this TODO entry speaks about compilation, it is much
> simpler to compile CCL than Emacs Lisp.

Modifying the byte interpreter offered a simpler way to get going.

> And AFAIU, it suggests first to try compiling CCL bytecode to native
> code as opposed to compiling Emacs Lisp bytecode to native code.

It does: "Converting CCL programs to native code is probably the first
thing to try, though."