From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pdumping "into" the executable Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:22:12 -0800 Message-ID: <05c667d7-ad68-925b-75e6-5834ee528aa6@dancol.org> References: <87d10rpid8.fsf@tromey.com> <40f9317e9ee2220ba612cc117d6174c2.squirrel@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1519684664 4068 195.159.176.226 (26 Feb 2018 22:37:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:37:44 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 Cc: Tom Tromey , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 26 23:37:39 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eqROr-0000TW-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:37:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33594 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqRQt-0005PZ-SD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:39:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqRAF-0000CR-64 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:22:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqRAE-0006hM-B7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:22:31 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:36134) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eqRAE-0006e8-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:22:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=2tR6qm7tuVkqRUFlkEZBttN9XMUQA/2QWyBp34XyO68=; b=WMeMyqYQVwpkWhslAxJHq0BU1m1Sby9Y9e0vOEJhet+W0ZDVM02AsI7HcjYa7MUUqRiXlWXdK2IITmJiXM+2cDE2iCXVu4ABajS6VBRj5ECI+jBmV3Z4c5K1+lIxy1yCDVbDW8fEF20ZNHr1zQZSl1WeAyEnxZmoJ4SMI+5gtom3VdpKcT2+yizY84DS+BIMBer6/ts0H/UOO/oDr6+BoMLXBbccpmSVT1W6MMSi4NVOd02jnpZa8qNFGu1mCQNow71QxGoSxQ052kkgmhLaqlwZ5h4fyc2qPaoGSckne4SLrFJ8w9Q97d+4kVJ4Tj75QTfZVqwRw+q/uw1FqCp4gA==; Original-Received: from [2604:4080:1321:8ab0:2891:b7:d72c:af1b] by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eqRA2-0002W0-Mj; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:22:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:223094 Archived-At: On 12/31/1969 04:00 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 02/26/2018 01:18 PM, dancol@dancol.org wrote: >>> Or, just turn the dump to a C file, then compile it >>> and do a second link.  Aside from (maybe hypothetical) C compiler >>> limits, that would be very portable. >> But not redumpable. > > Why couldn't it be redumpable? All that the user should need is a C > compiler. That's not unreasonable. I thought we had this argument back when we were talking about modules. I think it's unacceptable to require a C compiler and the presence of Emacs unlinked objects for the proper operation of an end-user feature. >> Besides, the problem with a second link is that it might change the >> relative positions of symbols within Emac > > How could that be a problem? Symbols known to C code are known by their > fixed offsets and the second link wouldn't change these offsets, and > symbols not known to C code need to be reallocated anyway during loading. The linker is what determines into-translation-unit offsets, not the compiler. The offsets are patched in at link time. There's no particular requirement to perform the link the same way every time.