From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 00:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <87y1ty9lha.fsf@gnus.org> <87lepym6ok.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <877d1i9h7k.fsf@gnus.org> <83edvqyr3q.fsf@gnu.org> <874jwl8e4p.fsf@gnus.org> <87pmf64beo.fsf@gnus.org> <87h70i4a46.fsf@gnus.org> <87czb648r9.fsf@gnus.org> <874jwi47l6.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgea2sgv.fsf@gnus.org> <87r0zm2qpl.fsf@gnus.org> <87ilky2khe.fsf@gnus.org> <87o7up26dr.fsf@gnus.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="40318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rlb@defaultvalue.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, david@tethera.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 06 02:47:38 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 1ogF34-000AIy-58 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 02:47:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49874 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ogF33-0006N4-17 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:47:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ogF1P-0004AQ-KF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:58652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ogF1N-0007yw-RL; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from ma.sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 2960jmJR002577 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 6 Oct 2022 00:45:48 GMT In-Reply-To: <87o7up26dr.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2022 01:33:04 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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:297037 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Andrea Corallo writes: > >>> You missed my point. "-Q" doesn't have "one clear meaning" -- it's a >>> mish-mash of stuff, affecting how many things in Emacs works (like >>> Customize, X resources, packages, and so on). >> >> Still I think none of these as anything to do with the execution engine >> (and should not). > > Did I say they did? No you didn't nor I claimed you did. I'm saying -Q does control a totally different area of Emacs that is not the execution engine. For instance it does not affect bytecode execution, consequentially I don't see why it should affect native code execution. > You claimed that "-Q" has "one clear meaning", and > that's false. "-Q" means, sort of, "without any local changes", which > is really wishy-washy semantics. Sorry for me this meaning is clear. > Which reminds me of another thing -- was there a reason that --batch > implies "avoid most JIT compilation", like it does now, by the way? > It's always seemed pretty odd to me, because JITting could well be quite > useful when doing batch stuff, and there's no handy way to switch it on > when doing --batch. The rational is that "tipically" batch executions are short in time, so spawning there native async compilation would be a waste of cycles if they do not complete in time. I think no one has statistical prove of this, but the rational was at least discussed and I believe agreed here. Andrea