From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to drop the pre-dump phase in the build? Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:49:52 +0200 Message-ID: <83ha9bborj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20140110191530.5772E38019B@snark.thyrsus.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389383413 15800 80.91.229.3 (10 Jan 2014 19:50:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 10 20:50:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1i5w-0006g4-El for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:50:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58743 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1i5w-0003vq-3t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:50:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55694) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1i5n-0003uC-UK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:50:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1i5h-0006mM-9j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:50:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:44640) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1i5h-0006lq-1b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:50:01 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZ700C00AYBHB00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:49:59 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZ700CJTB3BGH20@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:49:59 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20140110191530.5772E38019B@snark.thyrsus.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:168035 Archived-At: > From: esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:15:30 -0500 (EST) > > (2) Even in the non-crossbuild case, it requires a whole lot of > build-system hair we could otherwise do without. Like what? > (3) Back when I last looked at it (admittedly a long time ago) > the dump code was both the largest single source of porting > problems and a serious attractor of crash bugs. Didn't hear about these in a while, perhaps several years. > (4) We're presently buying some startup speed at the cost of a larger > minimum working set. That's not true: we only preload stuff that is almost immediately necessary anyway. You'd have almost the same footprint before you type anything in Emacs after it starts, even if you start "emacs -Q", let alone a full-blown session that loads a .emacs. In any case, without showing numbers for the footprint, and some analysis of which files might not be needed right away, it's very hard to have a rational discussion. > If anybody wants to own this problem, comparative benchmarking seems > like a good place to start. That is, hard numbers about the > actual performance effects of pre-dumping. That'd head off a > lot of arguments, anyway. I suggest to file a feature request bug report, so that this (and any followups) gets recorded > (Why, yes. I *do* enjoy shaking up peoples' long-held assumptions. > This wasn't obvious already?) Let's have one revolution at a time, shall we?