From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:23:27 +0200 Message-ID: <837f7mrvq8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <047a67ec-9e29-7e4e-0fb0-24c3e59b5886@dancol.org> <83zikjxt1j.fsf@gnu.org> <727ccd66-3bc3-2a41-7d1d-ef6dae9f0d1e@dancol.org> <7A914757-B1A4-4EEE-9DF0-68EFDDA9A5DB@autodesk.com> <83k2bmxju3.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480443865 16299 195.159.176.226 (29 Nov 2016 18:24:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:24:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: burton.samograd@autodesk.com, dancol@dancol.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 29 19:24:21 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 1cBn4l-00033R-KP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:24:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cBn4p-0000Ls-A1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:24:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cBn4H-0000Lk-97 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:23:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cBn4G-0003Ul-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:23:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cBn4C-0003U7-2z; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:23:44 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1125 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cBn43-0001D2-AM; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:23:37 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:03:01 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:209745 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Cc: rms@gnu.org, dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, burton.samograd@autodesk.com > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:03:01 -0800 > > >>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii writes: > > EZ> However, a dumper that we control by manually telling it what to dum and > EZ> what not doesn't have to do that. IMO, that's just something that doesn't > EZ> need to exist in the brave new unexec-free world. (Note that the "one huge > EZ> .elc file" method has this built-in.) > > I'd still like to see research into the "one huge .elc file" method, for the > obvious benefits you listed. Stefan and Ken made some good progress. IMO, we should actively continue pursuing that goal. > As far as I understand, the only difference between the portable > dumper, and one-huge-.elc, is efficiency. Given infinite resources, > the .elc method is much to be preferred, since everything we need > "falls out" from existing design. Any memory dumper will always be more efficient than loading .elc. The challenge is to make the difference smaller than the annoyance level of the users. Since initial testing already produces load times below 0.5 sec, I don't see why further optimizations won't deliver enough speedup to make it fast enough.