From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <87leftxaiz.fsf@localhost> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> <87cz16o8vz.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzve8r4m.fsf@localhost> <871qhmo5nv.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkgq8p5t.fsf@localhost> <87leftnat6.fsf@yahoo.com> <87fs6171uj.fsf@localhost> <83zg49gmgl.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttuhxejx.fsf@localhost> <83pm55gjaa.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15635"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 18:36:24 2023 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 1qHRxu-0003qI-V1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 18:36:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHRxj-0005Nu-Ct; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:36:11 -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 1qHRxi-0005Nk-1I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:36:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHRxe-00005H-8q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:36:09 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C45A240103 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 18:36:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688661363; bh=TqR2M6hhJFo6ohQ/Ihghay//0UUCsKO0JUsotB9B3HI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=bQVZVJF9yMbbTyQ1wy4nWLFGC3Yx5r39VChJJTAKUhZ3nFl2pXcfQD3yuFQwntQ5K RcD5qB8zbM5wQjIoHyvS4XCRCtzEXGvoKNaomBo9hsB3q6WhRK9lWEed9tg4zQ4+2Z BLHG0T9Dqb/1v0uC+kytenPPldnBBZM48MsQNxfv2Vn0GZtVHNjJsxzWMQJt7NT+OA BxvYDRW05TJuCOTqXJapkgeJbPdSee10UEbvfU5zdOGWAg2FUXx9ZurgFJ2YvOee96 QdBAtkvlzkn1+XMxt7aYpGO7gbEYVdbzJZL0V1tEuY2J+bFNalco2r0KlrABQpJgFr DduQAICKQVMTA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Qxhwz0dC6z9rxB; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 18:36:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83pm55gjaa.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:307521 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> AFAIK, process communication is now implemented using buffers that, even >> in the absence of coding system, index the data stream into byte array. > > Yes, but isn't binary data also a stream of bytes? It is, but storing that data in buffer will involve non-trivial extra memory allocation. >> I am not sure if it is something that can be directly fed to memcpy (thus >> avoiding too much of extra cost for passing Lisp data around). > > If you don't want the incoming data to be inserted into a buffer or > produce a string from it, then what do you want to do with it instead? > To use something in Emacs, we _must_ make some Lisp object out of it, > right? What I had in mind is, for example, memcpy wide_int_object -> child process -> memcpy to child process own heap. So that we do not need to go through creating a new wide_int object in the child process. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at