From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:39:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <8335c9dkyf.fsf@gnu.org> <83edvqafr7.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsg6m5zx.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83mtaeys7k.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7uukngi.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83a66czz5q.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="28314"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Rob Browning , tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 03 18:54:04 2022 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 1ofOhf-0007Ba-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 18:54:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37520 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofOhe-0003D4-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42780) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofOTz-00029m-7x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:39:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:3090) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofOTw-0002aD-QL; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:39:54 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF4F8800AE; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2ADE18071D; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:39:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1664815185; bh=/KayoTiljwWcUqVHj1cfSlhCkySRiKjFye1mJfF7sJU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LYfwUJEUUlUTHaoi29iMcEpAxat11jhAQRn2iwzFaakbQUU7TtWduRrQ/UgyEspg0 t0L9CDGezqmZoguj6ejK0dKPirkOmseweKPxue6gaJSXC+rL7GcrvTs31/TUCRphS5 KXEoyLc7ZZ3OasN5vmsprSMREg1obwgJlDniRParYJvbTKo96wXEKceCOzf8q5J+t2 3TkckTAfkVgBf7uuD5G1AoxZq8Ihhsln/Jicj4ZRGD7H4i+3zMkMfu93nH5oAps+7s eez58uw6Vn3L465wV6QMtRfh9KPECnoOo+DFUSd2VYkAqE9TKvxldZcTg8ytWU+f6x q/hpV/adnGdZg== Original-Received: from alfajor (65-110-220-202.cpe.pppoe.ca [65.110.220.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE1B1120DDB; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:39:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83a66czz5q.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 03 Oct 2022 18:48:17 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:296768 Archived-At: > But Emacs does that all the time: there are many features that invoke > sub-processes and many more features that write to the disk. I never > heard anyone complaining seriously about that, and I'm quite sure many > users don't even know which Emacs commands invoke subprocesses under > the hood. FWIW, during the stealth jit-lock discussion, several people mentioned the battery impact. And the issue is not subprocesses per se, but it's extra processing that happens outside of the control of the user. > So I'm not sure these complaints are based on real problems. Did > anyone compare the "sudden swamp of the CPU" caused by JIT native > compilation with what happens with other commands that invoke > subprocesses? If so, did they present some quantitative data? Probably not, no. It's likely mostly a question of perception, so if we could make it completely invisible the "problem" would disappear :-) But the fact that lazy native compilation tends to pop up warnings (and to make matters worse, it does so ... without warning) makes it very much visible instead. Stefan