From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 21:40:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83pmfayspn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <8335c9dkyf.fsf@gnu.org> <83tu4odez7.fsf@gnu.org> <871qrrpkgx.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <834jwnbi6c.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtafnun5.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83sfk6ahty.fsf@gnu.org> <837d1i16yk.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7uum6xa.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9064"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, david@tethera.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, akrl@sdf.org To: Rob Browning Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 02 20:41:44 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1of3uK-0002Gq-0Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 20:41:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50964 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of3uJ-0003PW-03 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:41:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of3tN-0002Zk-PS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:40:45 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60244) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of3tM-0007r8-9Z; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:40:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=hzgce1efwFA2lSsacSCNQZZKx+B8JUwqMeAI0yqrceM=; b=f3Sm2QkiubNe 6kbE23o7z8uBgmUG1MBMfgxyu0Nx3PQx1Z8ugjR2kP4uddULd6Sv86xwpL7yHMhdg+E84dy/hzfPp ujVfr0hpxSH0htejtEX0gB0GdGBopbgGAHarQc6e94VoDnoXA/Av0s9T/gbJXVHZFYJWDShWoX/HQ +21Lf7G3NdaytxSZkHIX0KakQHFjci8eLYN4Ree8G5yyGNDsgrg98GvbUSXO1boAbX3/VVTcQPAsA jKzp9S5WqQS5TJb9IFZuw48J2Xvj1ckClLpKaaPxkxU+u0+DV0FusxnwFX02GNAeIIGj6ueM7iuwk M+gIlWVItiI7aCjNUdbpjA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4769 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of3tL-0006If-OR; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:40:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o7uum6xa.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Sun, 02 Oct 2022 13:12:01 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:296681 Archived-At: > From: Rob Browning > Cc: david@tethera.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, akrl@sdf.org > Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 13:12:01 -0500 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Theoretically, yes. But I don't yet see why the particular context > > described by Rob is different to the degree that it would need special > > procedures. > > While I'm not sure where we'll end up, I do think others may put more > weight on some of the concerns. For example, across the broader > world/users-of-debian-and-derivative packages, I suspect there are some > who care more about storage space. > > As mentioned elswhere, we get regular requests to make emacs-nox even > smaller. And my eln-cache is currently 40MB, which is storage space > we'd thought we might not have to duplicate across the emacs users on a > system in the common case (Of course I know the duplication rate would > vary depending on which users use which things, but unless the sets were > disjoint, there'd be duplication that didn't seem necessary.) IMO, this is actually an argument _against_ compiling everything AOT. Whether the duplication is significant can only be decided based on actual usage figures. It is incorrect to assess this based on the *.elc files, since those are independent of almost everything. There's high probability of wrong decisions based on that analogy. There are many factors that affect compatibility of *.eln files to Emacs binaries; for example, it's enough to add or remove a primitive, and you will need a whol;e new set of *.eln files. Thus, it is quite possible that duplication will be smaller and OTOH waste of disk space due to unnecessarily compiled *.eln files will be higher than you envision. Only practice will show the real situation.