(defmacro define-unibyte-mapper (byte-char-name code-byte-name &rest exceptions)
`(progn
- (declaim (inline ,byte-char-name ,code-byte-name))
+ (declaim (inline ,byte-char-name))
(defun ,byte-char-name (byte)
(declare (optimize speed (safety 0))
(type (unsigned-byte 8) byte))
exception
byte))))
byte))
+ ;; This used to be inlined, but it caused huge slowdowns in SBCL builds,
+ ;; bloated the core by about 700k on x86-64. Removing the inlining
+ ;; didn't seem to have any performance effect. -- JES, 2005-10-15
(defun ,code-byte-name (code)
(declare (optimize speed (safety 0))
(type char-code code))
+ ;; FIXME: I'm not convinced doing this with CASE is a good idea as
+ ;; long as it's just macroexpanded into a stupid COND. Consider
+ ;; for example the output of (DISASSEMBLE 'SB-IMPL::CODE->CP1250-MAPPER)
+ ;; -- JES, 2005-10-15
(case code
,@(mapcar (lambda (exception)
(destructuring-bind (byte code) exception
;;; checkins which aren't released. (And occasionally for internal
;;; versions, especially for internal versions off the main CVS
;;; branch, it gets hairier, e.g. "0.pre7.14.flaky4.13".)
-"0.9.5.66"
+"0.9.5.67"