20:50:07karloszso i was thinking over the approach you suggested yesterday
20:50:23karloszwhich was to return the ast in function=info
20:50:48karloszis there a disadvantage to just writing compiler macros instead and returning the right source form instead?
20:51:09karloszthat way i won't have to make the ast's myself, and i can do the &rest inlining
20:51:22karloszare compiler macros guaranteed to expand?
20:51:43Shinmeracompiler macros are prohibited from expanding if the function is declarednotinline
20:53:04karloszhm... do you think it would be reasonable to punt to the default, slower bytecode sequence if a user explicitly declares something like print notinline?
20:54:00karloszim not quite sure when someone would explicitly declare a standard CL function notinline
20:54:14karloszor what an implementation is expected to do with it generally
4:17:03drmeister::notify loke The dev branch built - I pushed it to the master branch
4:17:03Colleendrmeister: Got it. I'll let loke know as soon as possible.
5:44:08karloszits actually realtively easy to tell which <- instructions are actually needed in the flowgraph. if a <- instructions's target node has only 1 def, and either the source node has 1 def or the target has 1 use, then the <- instruction can be eliminated, with the source and target nodes merging into one node
5:45:00karloszthat's the algorithm i'm using to only produce the minimum amount of runtime store and loads from <- instructions