From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some experience with the igc branch Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:24:14 +0000 Message-ID: <8734ia79jq.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <867c7p2nz4.fsf@gnu.org> <861pxx2lh7.fsf@gnu.org> <86ldw40xbo.fsf@gnu.org> <87cyhf8xw5.fsf@protonmail.com> <86y103zm4m.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Pip Cet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30605"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 26 16:58:01 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 1tQqFM-0007lJ-C0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 16:58:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQqEr-0003Fb-J7; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:57:29 -0500 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 1tQpiq-0005O0-UP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:24:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.16]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQpip-0007ZA-3y; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:24:24 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735226659; x=1735485859; bh=5k9+27HyJvGsrff8WYUZxgiMFm/qc7yIK2rjGpqaUKQ=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=RL0w1g7h/54jlHbuV+4Z4IdCN6NGqCuN+ft4VACRBtUYI/Y3BIkHjG9RJjkqHb+p+ r76QkNiYCsYK40piEoZmI7pFnPIMK+ENn6tXwmaTiUJrLPOIocmm58GRLpAw0oxvf6 QF4J6P5Zx33txOq7piZ7FNbW+kw3p66hKayw11Cp/cnh8xwsJ8jdiHjNWolLiox7o2 dH3fFx/ygVnHvuO+ceB39KC+DppPlxV2vttcbGCzi4h92mnv0fNGR3ro2Ibtck7jz6 Ruw5x77IipVVWHMMKyfd4MGkmaZY3a0gRKzwwwtqp2CsJosnw9cDE222Fuo7OP8GuB IEQgA8glSOkSA== In-Reply-To: <86y103zm4m.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: ec14aaaa5c364b5d311ff5047ab5583391e5741c Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.43.16; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-4316.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:57:28 -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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327158 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:40:42 +0000 >> From: Pip Cet >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, e= ller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org >> >> I haven't seen a technical argument against using separate stacks for >> MPS and signals > > You haven't actually presented it. That's correct: we have an idea and a PoC, no design to discuss or anything close to a proposal, at this point. My idea was to ask for obvious problems precluding or complicating this approach. I've found a few minor things; so far, nothing unfixable, and no significant effects on performance, but the fixes will have to become part of the design and discussion. I don't think anyone is actually running the code (and that's perfectly okay), but if that is incorrect, please let me know so we don't rediscover bugs that I've already fixed. I think rr (time-travel/reverse debugging with acceptable performance) support is important, but I think I'm the only one? It seems to be really slow on this branch, though I don't know how fast it is on scratch/igc. Pip