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: pdumper on Solaris 10 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:24:11 +0000 Message-ID: <878qsdbb04.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87frmyjn9j.fsf@protonmail.com> <86ldwqfcqv.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5d6jgim.fsf@protonmail.com> <86a5d6f7bn.fsf@gnu.org> <871pyijctd.fsf@protonmail.com> <8634iyf257.fsf@gnu.org> <87pllqcv2s.fsf@protonmail.com> <878qsdrerh.fsf@yahoo.com> 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="27284"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 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 Wed Dec 18 14:12:23 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 1tNtqg-0006y3-Pe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 14:12:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tNtpn-0006mg-EL; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:11:27 -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 1tNqI5-0001Ia-UE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 04:24:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-40131.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tNqHz-0004TS-Tg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 04:24:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1734513855; x=1734773055; bh=wsVLUFLnbv2j6cqELFb3XJpz754hVSvuIyNpMkoa1TA=; 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=v9ueAr8KPzmkxc/DUCGoApsIUGtGKQtQe/9Ds9R4MG0dHgy01oMynGSybGJQCW0L/ CC+SqETIQDoVnrdKL8G0YhmSQd7n044kf8YXhyMIVoXnKm2VLqWHzVQcp8lGUx9TBY W9HQZrgHOYsWWYhrfcDaLO2SD5XfmGIK4dZv1SqHWWJe+BcDiv5YEyLjbttHNcsuhI W9XpEBGdOCAPVsClkhwFN75RP2D+8G0s82p20saq/ufpPgMcGRIMPDXmU7WmjCk/UG gzfjOih8jfIkRv188P7Jp9Y20BDfrI7WeyGU9sSQgnAiP9jZ1H7EL5LvLl9MnTjcPm PUqE8C0/RyMJA== In-Reply-To: <878qsdrerh.fsf@yahoo.com> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: b260065c1691ac17d53b8ce68bab657377621ea4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.131; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40131.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 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_H2=-1.116, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_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: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:11:25 -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:326646 Archived-At: "Po Lu" writes: > Pip Cet writes: > >> "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> >>>> > Modern x86 CPUs can handle 64-bit values just fine, thank you. >>>> >>>> Modern x86 CPUs running 32-bit code (x86, not x32) still need two >>>> register names for each 64-bit value. With 8 GPRs, that's a significa= nt >>>> problem. So, no, "just fine" isn't accurate here. >>> >>> I again disagree. And you forget other registers. >> >> I think this is a perfect example of why discussions with Eli are so >> hard. What do you disagree with? Which mysterious "other registers" do >> you mean? Why do you think I "forget" about them, with the implication >> that I do not understand the x86 architecture? > > I think it's clear that users of the 32-bit PC architecture are expected > to sacrifice some performance by their choice. Why cannot the question > whether the tradeoffs are acceptable be reserved to those users? The > mere existence of the USE_WIDE_INT MinGW configuration is evidence > enough that users exist who do not need our arbitrary judgement. I have no idea what you're responding to here. Of course users will continue to be able to use 32-bit PCs, and there is no "arbitrary judgement" in anything I proposed. I propose to remove WIDE_EMACS_INT (if that is what you're talking about? I honestly don't know) because it's no longer necessary to make any tradeoffs there, not because I think that no one should ever have used it. Pip