From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows emacs-25.1 i686 vs x86_64? Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:22:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20161107152228.61e18b30@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> References: <6e2cffe5-942b-48d4-9ed5-ef39803bcd30@googlegroups.com> <87mvhgsf21.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8360o4monq.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaw4gq0j.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83oa1vlnkk.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1iba6od.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83ins2jq88.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg2p8swx.fsf@russet.org.uk> <831sypjmst.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpggip8j.fsf@gnu.org> <05ba947a-970a-178c-8036-bcdf84485384@cs.ucla.edu> <83zilbgo4u.fsf@gnu.org> <20161107140228.0a60be57@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20161107150232.0b10d24f@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478550219 3864 195.159.176.226 (7 Nov 2016 20:23:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 07 21:23:33 2016 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 1c3qRe-0005Ai-9j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:23:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3qRh-00074m-BB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:23:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40103) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3qRB-00074U-3m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:22:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3qR6-0004ti-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:22:32 -0500 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:50374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3qR5-0004rC-TI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:22:31 -0500 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BFA162; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:22:28 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8BE2DE145; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:22:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400 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:209265 Archived-At: On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:10:57 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Sure, but there's very little evidence that many of those are > > extant. > > Five years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And > yet, at that point, some user complained about something that broke > under Windows98 and in their context it was still in wide use and > they went through a fair bit of trouble helping us debug this > use-case until it worked again. > > So my gut feeling still agrees with yours, but I wouldn't > necessarily trust it. I think deliberately breaking it seems like it would be antisocial, but going through substantial trouble (that is, say, holding back some sort of improved functionality) to make sure it keeps working also seems unreasonable. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com