From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:38:28 +0200 Message-ID: <834m2orkhn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <047a67ec-9e29-7e4e-0fb0-24c3e59b5886@dancol.org> <83zikjxt1j.fsf@gnu.org> <8360n6ruzu.fsf@gnu.org> <0839b53b-4607-144f-3746-db054a29c1cd@cs.ucla.edu> <83zikiqdu5.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480523968 26133 195.159.176.226 (30 Nov 2016 16:39:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 30 17:39:23 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 1cC7uk-0005yA-DP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 17:39:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45046 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cC7um-0006SO-Hl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:39:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35149) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cC7tz-0006Ri-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cC7tv-0006KS-Ja for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:35 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cC7tv-0006KO-GV; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:31 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2231 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cC7to-0008Ko-CX; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:24 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Paul Eggert on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:54:16 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:209818 Archived-At: > Cc: rms@gnu.org, dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:54:16 -0800 > > Daniel's proposed change consists of code that works and that runs fast. I don't think "works and is fast" are the only criteria for accepting patches, or even the most important ones. > Isn't that reality? And in contrast, isn't the lread-based approach > wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not. I don't understand why we need to grasp the first straw we see around to get rid of unexec. What's the rush? And let me remind you that you didn't like this same idea very much when I proposed it 2 months ago, see the discussion that starts at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2016-09/msg00227.html > from what I can see, the C pipeline is by no means empty. Well, it somehow becomes all but empty on the other end. Believe me. And even if we cannot agree on that, the facts of what we see here are very clear. > The prospect of [C]s demise shouldn't materially affect our choice > of Emacs dumping technology in the meantime. I think it would be a grave mistake not to be affected by that. We would be burying our heads in the sand if we don't.