[gambit-list] Q: c-lambda efficiency in unsafe mode

[Jörg F. Wittenberger]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 22:23:03 -0400
Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> With a c-lambda the procedure itself and the conversion functions
> have to be called, and this adds considerable overhead on such a tiny
> piece of code.  A ##c-code has no overhead.

those lovely surprizes; if only there was a reference in the manual ;-)

These days I ran into bitwise operation within needs too.  I my case
composing network packages efficiently.

Q: What's the effect of `(declare (not safe))` in this context?  Will
c-lambda's still generate the type check operations (which I *really*
welcome during development) or should I consider using cond-expand (on
which feature btw?) to use ##c-code for performance sake?

Best

/Jörg