正如Rainer Joswig解释的那样，一种可能性是检查拆卸情况。例如，使用SBCL：
CL-USER> (defconstant +n+ 0)
"0"
"0"
CL-USER> (disassemble (compile nil (lambda () (case +n+
(0 (print "0"))
(1 (print "1"))))))
上面的输出显示了代码已被简化：
; disassembly for (LAMBDA ())
; Size: 32 bytes. Origin: #x52E552CC ; (LAMBDA ())
; CC: 498B4510 MOV RAX, [R13+16] ; thread.binding-stack-pointer
; D0: 488945F8 MOV [RBP-8], RAX
; D4: 488B15B5FFFFFF MOV RDX, [RIP-75] ; "0"
; DB: B902000000 MOV ECX, 2
; E0: FF7508 PUSH QWORD PTR [RBP+8]
; E3: B8A2324950 MOV EAX, #x504932A2 ; #<FDEFN PRINT>
; E8: FFE0 JMP RAX
; EA: CC10 INT3 16 ; Invalid argument count trap
NIL
还可以显示编译器的配置方式：
CL-USER> (sb-ext:describe-compiler-policy)
Basic qualities:
COMPILATION-SPEED = 1
DEBUG = 1
SAFETY = 1
SPACE = 1
SPEED = 1
INHIBIT-WARNINGS = 1
Dependent qualities:
SB-C::CHECK-CONSTANT-MODIFICATION = 1 -> 1 (maybe)
SB-C::TYPE-CHECK = 1 -> 3 (full)
SB-C::CHECK-TAG-EXISTENCE = 1 -> 3 (yes)
SB-C::LET-CONVERSION = 1 -> 3 (on)
SB-C:ALIEN-FUNCALL-SAVES-FP-AND-PC = 1 -> 3 (yes)
SB-C:VERIFY-ARG-COUNT = 1 -> 3 (yes)
SB-C::INSERT-DEBUG-CATCH = 1 -> 1 (maybe)
SB-C::RECOGNIZE-SELF-CALLS = 1 -> 0 (no)
SB-C::FLOAT-ACCURACY = 1 -> 3 (full)
SB-C:INSERT-STEP-CONDITIONS = 1 -> 0 (no)
SB-C::COMPUTE-DEBUG-FUN = 1 -> 1 (yes)
SB-C:STORE-SOURCE-FORM = 1 -> 1 (maybe)
SB-C::PRESERVE-SINGLE-USE-DEBUG-VARIABLES = 1 -> 0 (no)
SB-C::INSERT-ARRAY-BOUNDS-CHECKS = 1 -> 3 (yes)
SB-C::STORE-XREF-DATA = 1 -> 3 (yes)
SB-C:STORE-COVERAGE-DATA = 1 -> 0 (no)
SB-C::INSTRUMENT-CONSING = 1 -> 1 (no)
SB-C::STORE-CLOSURE-DEBUG-POINTER = 1 -> 0 (no)
SB-KERNEL:ALLOW-NON-RETURNING-TAIL-CALL = 1 -> 0 (no)
如果您不想深入研究装配体，则似乎有一种替代（但可能会产生误导）的策略是与无法优化的零件的拆卸尺寸进行比较。用defparameter（而不是defconstant）测试我的案例示例会使程序集增加3倍。此外，对于仅编写要用于优化的特殊用途的宏（例如，将case语句放在其中），您是否有任何评论？一个分析参数的宏-假设您更改了参数，则重新编译）？