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: Pure space Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:17:28 +0300 Message-ID: <86sev31bev.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87cym8jngk.fsf@protonmail.com> <87r0ank1hq.fsf@yahoo.com> <86frr32zs2.fsf@gnu.org> <8734n3jrrl.fsf@yahoo.com> <864j7j2u19.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttfji7ru.fsf@yahoo.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 17 16:18:23 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 1sfKG6-0007bj-Uc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:18:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sfKFb-0007DS-4D; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:17:51 -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 1sfKFZ-0007DJ-Ji for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:17:49 -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 1sfKFY-0002l4-MW; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:17:49 -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=C44/gVPsSEqLBBB9Z61rBwbsL0COUhVxt43odeYV4eA=; b=FH7Fahbg8F6G WWZwMQWlfTTJtbjXWk2U//GF5ZAmQ9nk+1cY8svk5BWioIdmU+RU8HeQ+n0rzMOZdXWMYfc+GAV6J 9q79gixwuu4btf5/ez2dI9BVv4LKJqwhiEkA7gw9wmpsnccL8XNnKhvfsDIXo6HXI949ZA9EPNoVl aIcmzJC6oHnB6gjet48k/W9LdzLOuQqjh+92AG+Awcg4Ujhx8WWJtpfNj6tR7DOdfUCnzzLJpZTip GSFkmXqiK3cv+w8MgB0a1jeg5KbHs6iIVv2yTI9JTK0BaRLyxR22sP7UdBXbMya5NKqw5unhRBkNt umMzLW09xVJBTV0tts72NQ==; In-Reply-To: <87ttfji7ru.fsf@yahoo.com> (message from Po Lu on Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:44:05 +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:322855 Archived-At: > From: Po Lu > Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:44:05 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > They might make the unexec build less performant. But my main worry > > is that doing so will get us to where we never were before -- an > > unexec build without pure space, and I'm unwilling to invest any > > effort in that configuration. It is enough that I need to routinely > > build it on my machine to make sure it doesn't break; I don't want any > > more time wasted on that. > > > > Personally, I fail to understand why you want to keep unexec any > > longer than we did. > > Chiefly because its removal is being considered for systems where unexec > never posed a problem: Solaris (where unexec is an OS feature and > virtually the recommended solution for such requirements as saving the > state of a program to disk), DJGPP, where you implemented specific > support for unexec in the C library, and suchlike. I'm not so > implacably opposed to removing it for Windows, provided that its > successor is made to function on Windows 98, or the machines where it is > wanted disappear. It should be quite clear that nowadays leaving unexec supported becomes a burden for Emacs development, so it makes less and less sense to insist on supporting it.