From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: please consider emacs-unicode for pervasive changes Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:54:05 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200208090754.g797s6s11972@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028879662 20635 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2002 07:54:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 07:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ken Raeburn , emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17d4bF-0005Mh-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:54:21 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17d4xi-00071S-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 10:17:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17d4bx-0000SD-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:55:05 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17d4b2-0000J4-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:54:08 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g797s6s11972; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:54:06 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Dave Love Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:6391 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:6391 > If you want to improve the GC (which would be very useful) what's the > reason for not trying the Boehm collector, as TODO suggests? The > ex-Harlequin Memory Pool System has been released since then, but as > far as I remember it doesn't currently have a suitable licence and I > don't know whether it would be worth considering practically, in > contrast to Boehm's. >From the very limited experiment done in the XEmacs camp it seems that the result is slow. It's not quite clear why and how much work would be necessary to tune it to something acceptable, but I maybe it's got something to do with "very fast cons-cell allocation". > > I've assumed that when I start work on a Guile branch, I'd be > > responsible for dealing with merges in both directions and all the > > coordination that implies. > > Well, I'll give up at that stage. I think Dave is right in trying to make people aware of the problem and that the merging should not be blindly always imposed on the same side. There should be enough cooperation that the merge is done by the people who can do it most easily (and thus reliably) and that depends on the actual change. In the case of a rename (or other changes like the ones done for Guile), the one making the change is better prepared to apply it to other branches because understanding the code that's changed is not really necessary. Maybe Ken should base its work on the emacs-unicode branch so it doesn't need to worry about another branch. Stefan