From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Buffer size limitation in insdel.c Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:30:14 +0200 Message-ID: <83k4mcvmc9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834odivv7v.fsf@gnu.org> <83r5gkvqpf.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285235132 32049 80.91.229.12 (23 Sep 2010 09:45:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 23 11:45:29 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyiMp-00048M-CG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:45:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45083 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OyiMo-0001oM-US for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:45:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37747 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OyiLw-0001R8-4K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:44:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oyi8F-0005GQ-2A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:30:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:49810) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oyi8E-0005GE-Rx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:30:23 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L97002000UAKB00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:30:10 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.203.3]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L970018G129NIF0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:30:10 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130654 Archived-At: > From: Leo > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:23:00 +0100 > > On 2010-09-23 08:55 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > It hides bugs, if nothing else. But I understand people prefer to keep > > it for now, for fear that Emacs will break completely on 64-bit hosts. > > The problem is that no one seems to be working on fixing those bugs. > > Maybe do it in a separate branch and merge it later on? I think it's better to do this incrementally in the trunk, because this means more extensive testing. Each incremental set of changes (see two such changes I committed yesterday) should be safe, so there's no need to use a separate branch. The final test is, as Stefan says, being able to visit and navigate a file larger than 2GB, at which point the limitation should be lifted.