From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: pipcet@protonmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: Win64 testers? Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 15:17:31 +0000 Message-ID: <87h6c1ws8n.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <86ttg9zgpb.fsf@gnu.org> <86h6c8zbh8.fsf@gnu.org> <86ikwly80l.fsf@gnu.org> <875xsixcxw.fsf@protonmail.com> <86frrmufh4.fsf@gnu.org> 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="10448"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 03 17:19:23 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 1saGXS-0002V5-T3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2024 17:19:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1saGWL-00037F-Bn; Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:18:13 -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 1saGVp-00030H-Uz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:17:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.134]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1saGVm-0000gD-3o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:17:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1722698255; x=1722957455; bh=yoYGQb9BHT/3OgvmAtjbo0tdDH/qHc+MH7vkzY9e4xc=; 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; b=ZkF5aY5dm2zyt3Eatxo/2uzJZ1JIEIOls4ajhloslvNlbrdrQCLAvPUrZU7uCmVGc CjkojkhbgeyNgXAQZ9dlzKDrmjYQvoNJYd4RylZcr9H2wMBoxUhkuSo0mc21YI6JdC B6aVDTlo9PgdSwCeytoSb9y7NCDB/fE0dHlrWAjYDn01cUhpg+S7XGtrMS5D6+coJe o0HtX7WYezS5q7TYFSorI1PlkFmodIPaB9QOnfgIAQ1a6X91dBKQpsITOwdoXC5bu3 3a3zo8JaF4VbVsSGmXCnWGtHEWw71d4Jmro2trnDbHHoiBis/RGSgyJYjSXvUG0Cvg 1fLCATWS09zpA== In-Reply-To: <86frrmufh4.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 9cbc3f4488995c3cb07b0c439fd0e264753505ae Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.134; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40134.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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:18:11 -0400 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:322311 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 07:50:21 +0000 >> From: pipcet@protonmail.com >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org >> >> "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> >> >> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:18:16 +0000 >> >> From: Pip Cet >> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org >> >> >> >> > Thanks, but this is just a first small step in the right direction. >> >> > We need this verified with Emacs, not a small separate test program= , >> >> > and we need then some serious testing of whatever solution we decid= e >> >> > to implement. >> >> >> >> I think the bar is slightly lower than that: the code in Emacs is >> >> clearly buggy, because it relies on strange and peculiar >> >> implementation details that go far beyond anything guaranteed by the >> >> API (and that may break at any point on new systems). Replacing it >> >> is necessary. >> > >> > I disagree. >> >> If you disagree that it relies on details that aren't guaranteed by the >> API, can you provide an API reference that backs you up? > > I disagree that the bar is lower than what I described. The existing > code relies on undocumented features, yes, but we have quite a lot of > that in the Windows and MSDOS ports, and there's nothing in particular > wrong with that. When the undocumented features stop working in some > situations, we need to find a solution for those situations, and those > solutions must be tested within Emacs, not a toy test program, and > they must be tested thoroughly, including (in this case) the > verification that the handle is not inherited by Emacs sub-processes. Thank you. I think I finally understand your position. >> >> One thing we can certainly stop doing is to discourage people from >> >> even looking at stuff. Closing actual bugs as "wontfix" without a >> >> sensible explanation, for example, seems counterproductive to me. >> > >> > Which bugs where "closed as wontfix without a sensible explanation"? >> >> 72335 > > That bug is not closed. Oh, I see. You're right, I should have said "marked as wontfix". Thanks for correcting me. >> >> > I'm using MinGW and don't intend to install MinGW64 any time soon. >> >> >> >> Maybe it's time to make that port unofficial, or at least to stop dir= ecting people to it rather than the MinGW64 port. >> > >> > We have been advertising MinGW64 (with MSVCRT) for a long time, see >> > nt/INSTALL.W64. But since it doesn't support Windows versions older >> > than Vista (or maybe even that is not supported anymore), we also >> > advertise MinGW, which does. >> >> Indeed, but people look at nt/INSTALL first, usually > > If they read it, it tells them that those instructions are for older > versions of Windows. I think a typical user will look at INSTALL first, which directs them to nt/INSTALL, which finally directs them to the file they were looking for in the first place, if they know enough to realize that MinGW and MinGW64 are different things. I think skipping one of those files would be a good thing, and increase the probability of successful builds. > >> and that's about an entirely different port which hardly anyone >> considers usable at this point, as far as I can tell. > > It isn't an entirely different port, no. The code commonality between > the two is close to 100%, and so is the functionality, the only > difference is that one is 32-bit, the other 64-bit. What I meant was that building according to the nt/INSTALL instructions will produce something people won't be happy with, with very rare exceptions, because it uses an entirely different toolchain, produces a 32-bit binary, and doesn't support as many features for a naive build (such as native compilation). As for the test person issue, would it be possible to start a new thread on emacs-devel with a detailed call for volunteers for testing Emacs on 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows? I think it would be great if we could make it clear to people that support for such systems is dependent on someone volunteering to test a provided ZIP file once in a while (maybe we can limit ourselves to one test per week or so), running a few lines of elisp but mostly reporting back on whether bin/emacs.exe starts up at all. Maybe it would also help to offer people the chance to respond by private email rather than on the list? What do you think? Pip