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: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:37:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83mvhruyrh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477481958 19315 195.159.176.226 (26 Oct 2016 11:39:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:39:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 13:39:08 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 1bzMXe-000221-Cq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:38:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzMXg-0003wZ-Qx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:38:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzMWj-0003u8-Hj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:37:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzMWf-000194-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:37:49 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzMWe-000190-U1; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:37:44 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2048 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bzMWX-0002p4-I6; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:37:37 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:49:33 -0400) 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:208830 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:49:33 -0400 > > > I think once you said > > here: > > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-01/msg01633.html > > > that you favored replacing unexec by a more portable scheme, there was > > no longer any reasons to make our argument stronger. > > In general, I'm in favor of a more portable method. But we don't have > one now. Is it feasible to do? Is anyone working on one? We are warming up. There are a few ideas, but I'm not sure we have decided which one is the best yet. > If not, then I hope we can design, with the Glibc developers, a > different set of hooks to allow us to make unexec work. Frankly, I think that ship has sailed, and cannot be turned around.