From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48117: 28.0.50; Update of loaddefs.el during normal build is unreliable Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 12:34:46 +0300 Message-ID: <837dkiajbd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8335v8c7o0.fsf@gnu.org> <83lf8zbyr8.fsf@gnu.org> <83a6pfbw3s.fsf@gnu.org> <83tunna9dt.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1ira8rs.fsf@gnu.org> <4edb1435266f8ca80b73@heytings.org> <83fsz6amij.fsf@gnu.org> <4edb143526eb913b641f@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 48117@debbugs.gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 01 11:44:25 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lcmAh-0002tX-TY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 11:44:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcmAg-0005n6-TB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:44:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49158) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm2d-0006sk-Ab for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:36:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48741) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm2d-0000Uj-1z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:36:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm2c-0005v8-T4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 09:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48117 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48117-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48117.161986170221868 (code B ref 48117); Sat, 01 May 2021 09:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48117) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 May 2021 09:35:02 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60279 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm1d-0005gL-2S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:35:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40796) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm1b-0005eu-P3 for 48117@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:35:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41375) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm1W-000863-2O; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:34:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4205 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lcm1U-0006np-BQ; Sat, 01 May 2021 05:34:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4edb143526eb913b641f@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Sat, 01 May 2021 09:20:51 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:205328 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 09:20:51 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: rgm@gnu.org, 48117@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Your proposal would produce marginally better results for a > > significantly longer build time, so I don't think it's a net win. > > If ldefs-boot.el is updated, say, once a week, this would force the > regeneration of the loaddefs files at most once a week. Wouldn't that be > a reasonable compromise? Compromise between which alternatives? The "marginally better" results in your proposal are that if someone updates from Git when he/she is in the middle of some development, then loaddefs.el are made up-to-date immediately, as opposed to _maybe_ waiting for the next update of ldefs-boot.el. (I say "maybe" because in general loaddefs.el _are_ updated as part of routine builds, just not 100% reliably so.) > On my computer, regenerating the loaddefs files takes about 10 > seconds, or ~3% of the time of a make bootstrap. Keep in mind that some people use less powerful machines. And the bootstrap time is not relevant, because loaddefs.el is completely regenerated during bootstrap anyway. The time that is relevant is the time of just "make", and that is usually quite short, even on slow machines.