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? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:21:34 +0300 Message-ID: <83mvhprla9.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> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> <9dca4b78-b142-2bae-4401-3f1ed74598b3@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477640157 2751 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 07:35:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:35:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 09:35:53 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 1c01hT-000704-1N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:35:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47203 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c01hV-0004XK-Fv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 03:35:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45001) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c01Tv-0002Wk-Fk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 03:21:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c01Tr-0005Hb-HI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 03:21:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45021) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c01Tr-0005HX-Dv; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 03:21:35 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3667 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c01Tk-0007yH-80; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 03:21:28 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:40:01 -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:208923 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:40:01 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > My impression is that most such initializations are so small and fast > > that we needn't worry about saving and restoring their state. We can > > simply redo the initialization when Emacs starts up again - this will be > > the default behavior if we leave the temacs initialization code alone, > > which means we'd get this for very little maintenance effort. > > It could be so, but someone will have to try it. We already have a CANNOT_DUMP configuration, which does precisely that, used by some systems, so this code is in reasonably good shape. It's just a question of make it fast enough.