From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency has landed Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:52:25 -0800 Message-ID: References: <83oa0lgnzx.fsf@gnu.org> <83inqrfzzp.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8c3fxru.fsf@gnu.org> <0bcf38b7-0893-a300-39c3-32da985c5717@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1482382390 12295 195.159.176.226 (22 Dec 2016 04:53:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:53:10 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 22 05:53:06 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvNK-0002Xv-3e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 05:53:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60401 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvNO-0006Um-BQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 23:53:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60986) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvMq-0006UU-F0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 23:52:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvMn-0007Vd-D5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 23:52:36 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:34322) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvMn-0007VX-49; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 23:52:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=I+WrKWhaYV4N9YAmVOJdCpWk0EJGMwJ6x7EwmjCLWtM=; b=OVheAqW6xBXed1UWpD+J9I4aq6WNBzWS8MoIx5HVd0peeD1RSNaj/4CM7B/+HOraxJx5YF79DM6ghylyh9Gew3Z83VyPwWD7rlBAw1Vxx7zrONprs3fx01qs97FBC+q8aKY+NNnEPeOf+30Kap1xwSJrQP+plGehBi+jF+8ptJ+SaQLnIKa0QeizQ44yfnokwkIqHb1rTGL5xvmfmQtInDcI/jXsG/M20+g2/xwheD4W0X69cAFszLf+0iRhWdQbMIZraPTPcffbVkgoNJMlJVvKvO/0oAryymclEINz5gkP5ZiG50/qW/u6LQftGHIOnCMm1WSMJkt4kFKgkIsBHw==; Original-Received: from c-73-140-245-253.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.140.245.253] helo=thule.roam.corp.google.com) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cJvMl-0006R8-D4; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:52:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <0bcf38b7-0893-a300-39c3-32da985c5717@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:22:18 -0800") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 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:210729 Archived-At: On Sat, Dec 10 2016, Paul Eggert wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> At the time, this conclusion made perfect sense to me. However, in >> hindsight, I can no longer convince myself the removal was justified. >> So if you find that the byte stack can still be removed without >> breaking the concurrency feature, feel free to do so > > I'll look into it at some point if I find the time. > > If memory serves I removed the byte stack not only for performance > reasons, but also because the byte stack implementation relies on > using pointers to freed storage, which violates the C How?