From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Po Lu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pdumper on Solaris 10 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 09:08:34 +0800 Message-ID: <87v7vtfyst.fsf@yahoo.com> References: <878qwuitbu.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzcajrnz.fsf@protonmail.com> <86o71mfhox.fsf@gnu.org> <87frmyjn9j.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1683"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , ali_gnu2@emvision.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 09 02:09:43 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 1tKSHN-0000Jl-Dj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 02:09:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tKSGY-0008V6-F9; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 20:08:50 -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 1tKSGW-0008Ui-5t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 20:08:48 -0500 Original-Received: from sonic301-30.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.184.199]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tKSGS-0004gc-TU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 20:08:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1733706522; bh=YtKrEKEjkNnBpc4EIKaqMBXP8KEevR+4MVJzovGDxk0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=KFi0K+3Xri04l5EL0q6IcwsVNsqc6QP51JmAI74mzZbsvfpAWW56/8Bw0PSZZghk7pp/ZiwkI812L5ORvaFspbaEvKh73TKVkFmCjcD688+P5kip0aOMHQhYbIT2mTzCSYDyOdO7BLezNZuxVGMMhR9xBOpD/hfociYA0e0Q16YFuixTaWLyCZjzb8Ca7uS4pAKdUc9GW1FiupTjb9XA24k2kxQV5DvSSBZ54GJc+wFlf6VLf281wfl95NtRkp8CxiDsnnm26ciNk4zfcQh3XMQKJXl9fmPaPl174s/fgnnAQncE93rhxMnhbWHla26xsxaYVU/7jlBHduKn1rsVcg== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1733706522; bh=lVSqIqX32AQvx0TTWCqvfj/Ig/oMVxGBsR+cOf6Hqde=; h=X-Sonic-MF:From:To:Subject:Date:From:Subject; b=QFRtyQDK1aY1MZAuOOfR7BSIGbHMZdC2oQc3tO2MUUL+h9kmo06q12EFjxgEbTaTqXCsRfeJu69P7KUEagdAOSG+veafhDbDhqIOVONLXFR4FkL46xbM85SSoSVA24o82qMa3aUZ7oVINHpOXjdJfbu2PEkb96Uq7MEMV6Wu8OMBbdquwCWrPTAvImWsCGFzd6Rd1p0ZTxpjU9mjNcW4j+CWAi+OgIBvTwcST0kbS1esEJJwNTarTciF8cvEVjuf9jCgUwlUrWUoXCcFr4kMhiIFXw/axcLTmH07BeG209LWCPJDbClecji/EJSiw55amn53i5AlHf0/4+keHuHQ9g== X-YMail-OSG: Rt7UUswVM1mtfMUOlqK2H19QpXzjBahUTvMgGrpWbl89WDt3A58JdFpSBmg7QmW sPKIehBlg2awJYwU2sC8lhHEGxK60lrQU5R3J2nMa7WqY2274ZaTRvhlyPQWOssGyHT8.Q9wZBc7 JuhgVwmXu3jAxYIEbHH4835VIxlxwaNBLKH20y9If1RVMR2KyfiGfr4w1qlA1tVLBYx_XZHK.Ax9 cc9YR4GzBJXhrc8F4Roa351sRKqf.zaX5pHNv4hinlOzhtpqzhEZiSR.37szGK5EX8v4CQFxA7UQ mehol0l3hLI.gmu8LpCNznysvSJpZjotBxIi7QK3jpBZikzL19J8Pwx15Wdxzgm9tedzB2ZlDHMc JpVtU2j2agromcErAZ2nraAF6Aga3_KDAC4BEeSnPPy_5H2cp8pz9Jvms153crKQF2yEtL.v1UBk _qXab7ckXX3nLECYr00xkKLq78U9uuEAobzkwBvtS4ce4Up_digl9rkr9EQaCRQBwLzDXKpjAvy2 piH5KkLz4bXy.y.UQWMrfxsUVVHvm.NLUj0V7NrV.fSAhGYyvZ9qP61ilKRCZcKB7cwmvt2orqZL TThD8.W1901xz_G_n70NFzYtpAGGjdcakxprtac6TRdYAusd_H5fmov2UxjJGZ.S1mmcvk7e76t4 xjD9.Pjh94Le0kIeH1ExcqtUwv11s3w8gtu8cHUzLrKnyCb7jCUzKrjATNp5tvQYxeo4oNSYfjOo l1qR7VIq62C6FlZxi8LcXIXh3nlwXsdbzND.ZW8qJzsalmFV7IzpwiH6fA3BNi7icd20My1XOtHF i1Zik3mQYQCAliWOlJRVLC4dKqv0mbeqoywu9n7epw X-Sonic-MF: X-Sonic-ID: 4e092f10-a6bb-4f73-8b16-435922d902f0 Original-Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic301.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 9 Dec 2024 01:08:42 +0000 Original-Received: by hermes--production-sg3-5b7954b588-8t8cf (Yahoo Inc. Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 017f57e87fd80e95cc4a6228b7cba88a; Mon, 09 Dec 2024 01:08:39 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <87frmyjn9j.fsf@protonmail.com> (Pip Cet's message of "Sun, 08 Dec 2024 13:52:09 +0000") X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.23040 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.yahoo Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.163.184.199; envelope-from=luangruo@yahoo.com; helo=sonic301-30.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com 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_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:326220 Archived-At: Pip Cet writes: > The only platforms that "need" to use !USE_LSB are those that cannot > guarantee 8-byte alignment for static objects, which is why I asked > about those. If those exist, we should have received bug reports > indicating that !WIDE_EMACS_INT builds don't work on such platforms. > > In particular, WIDE_EMACS_INT shouldn't imply !USE_LSB. That it > currently does is a very questionable optimization at best (fixnum > manipulation may be very slightly faster with !USE_LSB, but pointer > manipulation will be slower and requires extra registers, which is an > issue on i386). > > For example, NILP() would only need to look at a single 32-bit word for > the WIDE_EMACS_INT + USE_LSB configuration. I strongly suspect that > effect alone would make WIDE_EMACS_INT + USE_LSB faster than > WIDE_EMACS_INT + !USE_LSB (of course, the relevant optimization would > have to be made first). > > (Of course, WIDE_EMACS_INT is almost always a bad deal, anyway. As far > as I can tell, the justification for its continued existence is that > some C code assumes buffer positions are fixnums (and, because we expose > fixnum-ness to Lisp, some broken Lisp code might do that, too). If we > had implemented fixnums to be transparent, we could simply remove > WIDE_EMACS_INT, but that mistake has been made...) Why is WIDE_EMACS_INT a bad deal? Its effect is just as you describe: it enables 32-bit systems to access files larger than the standard fixnum limit on those systems.