From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows 64 port Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:34:37 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <4F4EEE4D.4030706@cs.ucla.edu> References: <20120219211800.0000558f@unknown> <834numv7js.fsf@gnu.org> <4F428780.8070902@cs.ucla.edu> <4F4D507F.7030008@cs.ucla.edu> <83obshcy8n.fsf@gnu.org> <4F4E7FE0.9040907@cs.ucla.edu> <83d38xcoyt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1330572895 389 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2012 03:34:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 03:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: fabrice.popineau@supelec.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ajmr@ilovetortilladepatatas.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 01 04:34:52 2012 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 1S2wn5-0000GF-G3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 04:34:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2wn4-0002xo-TB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:34:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35293) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2wn1-0002xg-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2wmy-0008T2-GM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:34:46 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62]:36588) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2wmv-0008Se-Lw; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:34:41 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AAFA60008; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:34:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5FrqUWftNrF4; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:34:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.10] (pool-71-189-109-235.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.189.109.235]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFDB5A60004; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:34:36 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 In-Reply-To: <83d38xcoyt.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 131.179.128.62 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:148846 Archived-At: On 02/29/2012 01:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I see many changes that qualify existing > declarations with `const', which cannot possibly be wrong. It's not an issue of whether the patch is *wrong*. It's whether the patch is *needed*. I can think of hundreds of places where I could put 'const' into the Emacs code, without breaking Emacs. But these changes are irrelevant to the Windows 64 port, and we should consider these changes independently of the Windows 64 changes. It's a significant alteration to the Emacs internal programming style to use "const" when possible (instead of when it's required), and any such change should be considered on its own merits. I happen to prefer "const" myself, but I realize that many folks consider it to be unnecessary verbiage, and we shouldn't introduce "const" under the argument that it's needed for Windows 64 when in fact it's not needed for that. > I also see > replacements of `unsigned long' with a `size_t', which cannot be > wrong, either. Same thing. Some of those replacements are needed for Windows 64, but many (most?) are not. I addressed this point in more detail in my previous message that I sent out a few minutes ago.