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: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:18:46 +0000 Message-ID: <874j2tb4oq.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <87pllicrpi.fsf@protonmail.com> <86bjx24ad0.fsf@gnu.org> <87cyhicocg.fsf@protonmail.com> <867c7q4592.fsf@gnu.org> <87y106cfb2.fsf@turtle-trading.net> <87jzbqas1d.fsf@protonmail.com> <86seqd2s8k.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="22333"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: b.riefenstahl@turtle-trading.net, 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 Tue Dec 24 14:25:54 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 1tQ4v4-0005a0-HO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2024 14:25:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQ4ua-00060e-8j; Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:25:24 -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 1tQ4oJ-0004rX-Rw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:18:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-10629.protonmail.ch ([79.135.106.29]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQ4oH-0005Jj-RG; Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:18:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735046330; x=1735305530; bh=7CzbxhX9PQwqGAzRf7JfFNNKX+3PKPoPNgSlvPC0iig=; 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=GOseKnnTO5WcKA3LLoaADIur4cLGuijF+U1XQEv34zfpZC1hh+1L5VX9HGKEA6F9P R83b8RCSKSqQgEYMAuNTGCjAQfckdGKUbzPMd9rcfJ5WNnWoSLKbKlyfQFUALe8dnZ Y7b2696A3jXDCOKn6tZuzMDP4PTIuSq2xum0R7o7UYRQXHVlI2J9pLEMkdbDb46uxH gtMZ95KVztJDpqc0HzLja6kCgJsz0gWYPfnQcd5Fe3/p47O5PWDSp1Fzr0f4oYCEZ0 NMLgEsWSPt30+O6yCNU9BA72FK9Wcy/4oW5mYUsKMGAyR3UHnVbqoQG3j2B1aPU4z3 IAGkYVxxdqxLg== In-Reply-To: <86seqd2s8k.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 4f6ca14fb1ee6e8418d466aad1ac3479e1827f00 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=79.135.106.29; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-10629.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:25:06 -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:327008 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 23:39:41 +0000 >> From: Pip Cet >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.= es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org >> >> "Benjamin Riefenstahl" writes: >> >> The allocation thread approach should work for all of them. If we have >> stdatomic.h, performance should be acceptable. > > We should carefully discuss the design and its implications before we > conclude that this is an idea that is good enough to justify such a > significant change. If nothing else, it throws out the window several > months of everyone's experience with the current implementation. I mostly agree, though I think to say that we throw out months of experience is to overestimate the magnitude of the change a bit. I'll push the bugfix I found, but I won't push this until there's some sort of consensus about whether it's a good idea (we seem to be close to a consensus that it isn't necessary or desirable; I'm the only one who disagrees with that, and I can live with the "not desirable" part if someone can convince me this change isn't necessary). Pip