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.devel Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 18:48:17 +0300 Message-ID: <83a66czz5q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <8335c9dkyf.fsf@gnu.org> <83edvqafr7.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsg6m5zx.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83mtaeys7k.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7uukngi.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="4978"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Rob Browning Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 03 18:10:00 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1ofO11-00013V-Hq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 18:09:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36986 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofO0z-0005lO-Sa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:09:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofNg9-0001QI-ON for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 11:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36178) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofNg7-0003nT-Um; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 11:48:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=F6dgkqE+UOYjiTUI0rV+EQgx4uqO4wyGfV9/3fYSfn8=; b=rnatgTpVHIBA QDgRZ8I0voG1voEjBzS8cLpPuYlg07oSIS/ZF5xBa9o6PLMiiByE0QK3diVG/k2yleq5Qxx/SvVFt t1qFPoj2reu6+oFFpz36IJg7uy7Bo3k6lnkiyH2bfw4E50BowR27nHGfx3+Q6brQOeAgrCn2/znME EU+YoRkT3/Al8USfmweVB9tZdHg+Zu+SOSSxVaL+kh70Zh4r1QfG1/tdXQQZkPVwi2rLrHFhg4Fwm bOWWxRoMPE0WtAwczlJIJxdonOMUbh9SNzl6RDBNYmTXt7jonJfYpGQZSarxZnDbjW1vmOAGbJL1a 3RyF2uVbDUslWS8L7C5HOg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2705 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofNg7-0003oG-DW; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 11:48:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o7uukngi.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:57:49 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:296760 Archived-At: > From: Rob Browning > Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:57:49 -0500 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Please try to understand the nature of the complaints. > > For what it's worth, one of the complaints was: > > I do not want emacs suddenly swamping the CPU on my laptop > unpredictably. I want all this work (in the common case) done while I > know I'm connected to power, before I head out. > > ...and we have for a very long time, perhaps as long as I've been > working with the packaging, had users who are concerned with disk space > usage, and ask for smaller package footprints. But Emacs does that all the time: there are many features that invoke sub-processes and many more features that write to the disk. I never heard anyone complaining seriously about that, and I'm quite sure many users don't even know which Emacs commands invoke subprocesses under the hood. So I'm not sure these complaints are based on real problems. Did anyone compare the "sudden swamp of the CPU" caused by JIT native compilation with what happens with other commands that invoke subprocesses? If so, did they present some quantitative data?