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: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:58:33 +0300 Message-ID: <83a8dt4u3a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <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> <8360ojpndr.fsf@gnu.org> <83shrnm0k1.fsf@gnu.org> <83insi5jy9.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvht50qb.fsf@gnu.org> <8c085c3e-361d-7d10-6f34-07c387eb3b43@dancol.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477325294 14143 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 16:08:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 18:08:09 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 1byhmk-0008F8-3a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:07:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47699 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byhmm-0001vE-9r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:07:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51031) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byheB-0004vG-NG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:58:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:55395) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byheA-0006RI-5e; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:58:46 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2283 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1byhdz-0006ux-9L; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:58:35 -0400 In-reply-to: <8c085c3e-361d-7d10-6f34-07c387eb3b43@dancol.org> (message from Daniel Colascione on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:17 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:208695 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Daniel Colascione > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:17 -0700 > > > In any case, I don't think it's right to throw out this idea without > > trying very hard to make it work, because the benefits are so clear. > > I'm worried that it'll be deemed to "work" at a level of performance > much worse than what we have today. Why would you worry that it'll be accepted then more easily than it's accepted now? The same arguments will be voiced in the future if the solution's performance turns out to be insufficient. > I don't see the unexec maintenance situation being desperate enough > that we need to accept a big performance loss. I very much disagree with this: the unexec maintenance situation is actually so fragile that it could break at any moment, in the sense that we could very easily get into having no people on board who know enough about unexec to solve the next problem that will break it. The number of people who do know gets smaller and smaller with each year. That is not healthy at all for the future of the project.