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: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 18:44:16 +0300 Message-ID: <837f8znk8f.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <838ttfnmev.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477237516 29387 195.159.176.226 (23 Oct 2016 15:45:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:45:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 23 17:45:10 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 1byKxE-0005KX-GL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:44:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41467 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byKxG-0003Nk-RQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:44:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52956) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byKwi-0003Ne-LL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:44:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byKwf-0005VI-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:44:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byKwf-0005V5-F2; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:44:21 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3168 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1byKwe-00044b-Ok; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:44:21 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:07:23 -0400) 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:208625 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 11:07:23 -0400 > > >> I'd rather live with the fragmentation. > > You mean, use gmalloc without ralloc? > > Not only when we use gmalloc but always. I suggest we get rid of ralloc.c. > > > Is that feasible? > > Why not? I don't think we ever used such a configuration. Is modern sbrk good enough for gmalloc?