Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps.

[Paul Eggert]

On 11/25/18 7:41 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > we could have a separate interpreter used only by the byte compiler.
> I don't think I like this idea: it will be a maintenance burden to
> maintain two interpreters, and we will have subtle long-lived bugs.

Yes, the only way it's plausible is if we have just one source-code 
instance of the interpreter, parameterized by whether it's doing things 
the slower (byte-compiler-oriented) way or the faster (current) way, and 
then partially evaluate the interpreter for the two cases. In that case 
the source code should be not much more complicated than 
scratch/accurate-warning-pos, and the number of subtle long-lived bugs 
should be about the same as scratch/accurate-warning-pos has now.

As I said, this approach is not for the fainthearted. But it should fix 
the significant performance problems in scratch/accurate-warning-pos.