@itemize @minus
@item
-There is no support for the ANSI @code{dynamic-extent} declaration,
-not even for closures or @code{&rest} lists.
+There is only limited support for the ANSI @code{dynamic-extent}
+declaration. @xref{Dynamic-extent allocation}
@item
The garbage collector is not particularly efficient, at least on
various bit vector operations, e.g. @code{(position 0
some-bit-vector)}
+@item
+specialized sequence idioms, e.g. @code{(remove item list :count 1)}
+
+@item
+cases where local compilation policy does not require excessive type
+checking, e.g. @code{(locally (declare (safety 1)) (assoc item
+list))} (which currently performs safe @code{endp} checking internal
+to assoc).
+
@end itemize
If your system's performance is suffering because of some construct
examples (some straightforward, some less so).
@menu
+* Dynamic-extent allocation::
* Modular arithmetic::
@end menu
-@node Modular arithmetic, , Efficiency, Efficiency
+@node Dynamic-extent allocation, Modular arithmetic, Efficiency, Efficiency
+@comment node-name, next, previous, up
+@section Dynamic-extent allocation
+@cindex Dynamic-extent declaration
+
+SBCL has limited support for performing allocation on the stack when a
+variable is declared @code{dynamic-extent}. The @code{dynamic-extent}
+declarations are not verified, but are simply trusted; if the
+constraints in the Common Lisp standard are violated, the best that
+can happen is for the program to have garbage in variables and return
+values; more commonly, the system will crash.
+
+As a consequence of this, the condition for performing stack
+allocation is stringent: either of the @code{speed} or @code{space}
+optimization qualities must be higher than the maximum of
+@code{safety} and @code{debug} at the point of the allocation. For
+example:
+
+@lisp
+(locally
+ (declare (optimize speed (safety 1) (debug 1)))
+ (defun foo (&rest rest)
+ (declare (dynamic-extent rest))
+ (length rest)))
+@end lisp
+
+Here the @code{&rest} list will be allocated on the stack. Note that
+it would not be in the following situation:
+
+@lisp
+(defun foo (&rest rest)
+ (declare (optimize speed (safety 1) (debug 1)))
+ (declare (dynamic-extent rest))
+ (length rest))
+@end lisp
+
+because the @code{optimize} declaration affects the binding, not the
+allocation.
+
+There are many cases when dynamic-extent declarations could be useful.
+At present, SBCL implements
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Stack allocation of @code{&rest} lists, where these are declared
+@code{dynamic-extent}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+Future plans include
+
+@itemize
+
+@item
+Stack allocation of closures, where these are declared
+@code{dynamic-extent};
+
+@item
+Stack allocation of @code{list}, @code{list*} and @code{cons}
+(including following chains during initialization, and also for
+binding mutation), where the allocation is declared
+@code{dynamic-extent};
+
+@item
+Automatic detection of the common idiom of applying a function to some
+defaults and a @code{&rest} list, even when this is not declared
+@code{dynamic-extent};
+
+@item
+Automatic detection of the common idiom of calling quantifiers with a
+closure, even when the closure is not declared @code{dynamic-extent}.
+
+@end itemize
+
+@node Modular arithmetic, , Dynamic-extent allocation, Efficiency
@comment node-name, next, previous, up
@section Modular arithmetic
+@cindex Modular arithmetic
+@cindex Arithmetic, modular
+@cindex Arithmetic, hardware
Some numeric functions have a property: @var{N} lower bits of the
result depend only on @var{N} lower bits of (all or some)