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: Solaris dldump Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:50:31 +0300 Message-ID: <86cym4y8vc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <878qwuitbu.fsf@yahoo.com> <6b0199db-60e3-4a41-8481-414688db0e18@emvision.com> <87ttfihbbn.fsf@yahoo.com> <87h6bhgzc2.fsf@yahoo.com> <86le0syd4h.fsf@gnu.org> <875xrwhfy7.fsf@yahoo.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36914"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, ali_gnu2@emvision.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 19 14:51:46 2024 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 1sg1rM-0009OP-NB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:51:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sg1qd-0000is-4q; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:50:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sg1qZ-0000hL-P3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:50:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sg1qY-0004Ju-Qq; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:50:55 -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=pAtqeDY0nFiJW8fkWb5ES9FZqxFT0TrIM7b9HfTrimY=; b=QGfcuWO2ioua nbd8tRAk0xxGgZ2adF4pcz7wQKpBkRQhkkekNUlWHkxtmswXIHyDJ8i6UbQzOKNiMkdA+M6WoTCjC FyqwYEAxRRN1Mon6qRGqGA44mrPG+r5ev03fjwWMAtr4Pef3ChW6JxXSFUnNvFfhSW+p96Tuan323 9W5bd+4bVD5Cfn9wvYOLFznDSW3z0OuPnSmE0h6Imxq3t8u9rLmdEsLck0oadPMo2zBWF4nHtzD1J mTUaze+L/cj2xRJ797gNXPoYN657/tLfytHKK1ln9h4+AjUhEBjgOcqaq7LDS8Jo7Mems7WMG16yz KLeiQDdBP3s9Pb7mX9pd4w==; In-Reply-To: <875xrwhfy7.fsf@yahoo.com> (message from Po Lu on Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:09:36 +0800) 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322917 Archived-At: > From: Po Lu > Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, ali_gnu2@emvision.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:09:36 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > In this case, keeping the support of unexec longer becomes a > > maintenance burden (just look at the #ifdef mess it requires), and > > that is the reason why we think we should drop those platforms that > > don't currently support pdumper. The fact that all those platforms > > are either very old or have better alternatives is just a supporting > > consideration, not the main reason. > > You mean the 35 instances of "HAVE_UNEXEC" in C source files, not > excepting the "HAVE_PDUMPER || HAVE_UNEXEC" conditions, or the malloc > and Gnulib flags that aren't necessary on unexsol? I mean all of them, and I also mean the need to understand the fine details of unexec, the differences between it and pdumper mode, and the reason for some tricky code we need for unexec. Most of current frequent contributors to Emacs have no idea about that, and thus the unexec build is very easy to break by some change that doesn't take it into account. > I would be as glad as you to see most of them removed, as they are > not significant on the systems where unexec should be retained. They are necessary. > > Once again, it is immaterial when a platform was EOLed. That is not > > the reason why we want to drop unexec. > > That's not what I heard just one message removed from mine You've misunderstood what Stefan meant. He was just responding to your message, nothing more nothing less.