From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Aur=C3=A9lien_Aptel?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic loading progress Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:19:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87y4t9m76w.fsf@lifelogs.com> <85k31coixa.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <85oapy5kt6.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <83y4oiiw81.fsf@gnu.org> <838ugdf251.fsf@gnu.org> <54D80098.3020209@cs.ucla.edu> <54D85304.1030600@cs.ucla.edu> <54D9AC29.2020603@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423646376 28126 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2015 09:19:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stephen Leake , Emacs development discussions To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 11 10:19:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YLTSI-0008KF-8K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:19:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43775 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLTSG-0007Ms-DX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:19:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48657) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLTSD-0007Ml-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:19:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLTS4-0001Lt-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:19:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]:33370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLTS4-0001Lp-OY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:19:20 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hl2so29471243igb.3 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:19:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2XI7PP84MZywa78eFqJcq1ukrkU7X+uJipOudEr0W1s=; b=v2xp5rnn1gjrmOF/0TgnskDNcfP8Za1TSCgMUg03vPfUDq22ZFelLaZkHPtjS/WJhe pGn7ZnnqYawwQrsRVVG6CjlsvkpN3SBlDK/d+EPdjQXMU475qYZ0w939Vro7uUsY1hXE dbYpnNkmxKNtyvXdAlLNbONVVhTHhzqCxBZqt5YyqCpeEzDCTMbPR7vPxzjXhNZeLnxV dhAcQIoFt/0p2stBIYKe91j+M5+NWStWX4HT/Fy4fxmRptf6lti7gd5cOKdabAGjDpQy BeSaByGekVQOB/soNKhPTIsS8+XOflJSbOre+h89jTBkE7io4AvD/fBdUYbVpebBhsi/ 7bBQ== X-Received: by 10.50.30.202 with SMTP id u10mr28479413igh.35.1423646359937; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:19:19 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.36.19.71 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:19:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54D9AC29.2020603@cs.ucla.edu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: INl0HbXcvg6-MTGLinEPfjQ1Gig X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:182867 Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Though this raises a related issue: as I understand it currently modules > must never refer to any Qxxx symbols (other than Qnil), since these symbols > may have different values in different Emacs implementations. And this > includes any macros or inline functions the modules may invoke. For > example, a module must never call 'functionp', since 'functionp' is an > inline function that refers to Qt. I get it now, thanks :) I understand you made this change for performance reasons. Was it really a bottleneck though? I don't want to undermine your work and I probably don't know enough to begin with so bear with me. I am under the impression you implemented a clever change that wasn't critical but made the module implementation a lot harder. Reverting it or disabling it for modules might be a solution? What do you think?