From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani
On 01/18/2016 12:02 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:50:31 -0800
>>
>> Emacs could live without the current unexec in a semi-portable way= by doing what
>> XEmacs does, which is to write out data and mmap it in later (sorr= y, don't know
>> the details). There are other possibilities, e.g., have unexec wri= te out the
>> state in the form of C files that are compiled and linked in the u= sual way to
>> build a faster-starting executable (this would be an Emacs API cha= nge, though).
>> Any such changes would take some time to hack into something relia= ble and
>> portable, and so will have to wait until after Emacs 25 is out.
>
> There's also what the MS-Windows port does (temacs allocates off a=
> static array), which AFAIK is entirely portable, and doesn't requi= re
> mmap.=C2=A0 See w32heap.c.
>
It's a portable stopgap, maybe, but a real portable dumper would be
_much_ better, since then Emacs could be a much safer
position-independnent executable (as a portable dumper would relocate
the dump as it loads, since it knows where all the pointers are).