On 03/30/2016 02:30 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> And zero years of experience with anything not statically linked into
>> Emacs core.
> 
> Actually not exactly since we've used dynamic linking on the Windows
> side for a few years now.
> 
> But I see no reason to expect any special issues showing up because of
> it in any case: none of the Lisp_Object low-level twiddling we do seems
> to depend in any way on whether code is linked statically or dynamically.
> 
>>> The other scheme originally implemented was terribly inefficient
>> No it wasn't. It's one additional pointer dereference.
> 
> I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about the cost of
> allocating/freeing those boxes to which you point.

That's cheap: you can do it with linear allocation out of an array. Why
would that be expensive?