From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:12:15 +0200 Message-ID: <87y346rjqo.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87mukocyze.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83v9zceb3n.fsf@gnu.org> <87tvev1epx.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83v9zbcesn.fsf@gnu.org> <87a7gnypsx.fsf@russet.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="164667"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 19 01:13:04 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGDI-000gjI-Bw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:13:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48524 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGDH-0005YW-8z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:13:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGCf-0005YR-3c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:12:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGCe-0005bR-1i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=42470 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGCd-0005YV-RY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:12:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHGCb-000fx7-Pn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:12:21 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:zp6cuWCzxJXp9y8KgxXWVr43AkM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:235638 Archived-At: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: > To summarise my feelings about the thread so far: > > - I think most normal users don't need debug symbols, I agree. > so I would be > minded to remove them (or not put them). I don't know why I have > added "-g3" to the default options. People who know what to do with > debug symbols are likely to be able to build Emacs for > themselves. Not really. Building Emacs is much harder than installing gdb, execute emacs under gdb and obtain an stack trace. Debug symbols are useful, and that is the reason why GNU/Linux distributions offer them as a separate package. > - We currently install emacs.exe and emacs-26.2.exe. I think we should > continue doing this because it is how we do it on other > platforms. As explained on a previous post, IMO the reasoning behind that practice makes little sense for Windows. > The disk space requirement is small (and will be smaller if we > remove debug symbols). It probably adds little to the download > bandwith (because of zip) and will add nothing with the .exe > installer for Emacs-27. And NTFS compression fixes the problem (and > more) for those who really care about space (and they are probably > using it already). Creating symlinks on Windows (pre-10, IIRC) require administrator privileges. Ditto for enabling NTFS compression. About what is small and what isn't: that's a personal opinion. I'm mildly annoyed about the fact that yesterday's MB are today's GB, without a proportional increase in functionality. Also, I recently started using an Android tablet with 32 GB storage and I really appreciate how the Termux guys manage to produce packages that are significantly smaller than those on desktop GNU/Linux. There are low-end computers in stores with 32 GB SSDs. And people use old hardware too. > I am happy to be corrected here if I am missing some unintended > consequence, or if you disagree with my justifications. > > > Unanswered questions for me: > > - If we remove debug symbols, why not do -O3 which may produce some > performance benefit? -O3 does not necessarily mean better performance. My bet is that the difference will be insignificant for Emacs. I've seen plenty of cases where -O3 was measurably worse than -O2.