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: pdumper on Solaris 10 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:08:56 +0200 Message-ID: <865xnrbh3r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a5d6jgim.fsf@protonmail.com> <86a5d6f7bn.fsf@gnu.org> <871pyijctd.fsf@protonmail.com> <8634iyf257.fsf@gnu.org> <8634iwex8q.fsf@gnu.org> <86wmg7bso1.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39196"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, luangruo@yahoo.com, ali_gnu2@emvision.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 10 18:10:10 2024 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 1tL3kP-000A1x-Uu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 18:10:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tL3jt-0001Jk-5X; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:09:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tL3js-0001JY-4V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:09:36 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tL3jr-0008J6-Mk; Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:09:35 -0500 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=PQ9xplXcdPnVfQ1CfqIkQApDHCmu6fkmdLvAytihh+E=; b=Eg0FWOWPHio3 8W98q8HXBPbknabZJeY2pSno+Bz2xG4/1lCYSd87JIm3dtQPKAkdXs3a49vWW/tnpRWZg4NhvGR13 6J/fnRSYr4V6vK3C5IUYCx9XgDX4RDc7fHEWJsf7n40zHNGf4jQQaqt5KjmfAr5hN45fcu3IKfuiq j1nyi4CmLGl6aT37nzIC5Y9pdp+FRoKfc4DP01/NYfFy4gQtGte8uvfwK8zr4BU9gfMmdQN74HFeN 1s4KGvSlPwbwdZEcL95/u68jp88mScrdv5IwuJMyysqp1BAKQrLEGXlSjt5KvMdmIJfHw0+e0bWGo 3t12J4ElWkjeMbLf3mOPxQ==; In-Reply-To: (message from Pip Cet on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:23:45 +0000) 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:326302 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:23:45 +0000 > From: Pip Cet > Cc: Stefan Kangas , luangruo@yahoo.com, ali_gnu2@emvision.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > I thought that WIDE_EMACS_INT will remain supported in non-MPS > > > (i.e. "old GC") builds even after the igc merge? Am I mistaken? > > > > Probably, but who will want to give up igc to get back WIDE_EMACS_INT > > (if indeed they are incompatible, which seems to be in disagreement)? > > It's !USE_LSB_TAG that's incompatible with MPS, not WIDE_EMACS_INT per se. I don't think anyone suggested that there is a fundamental problem if we force USE_LSB_TAG to 1 and enable WIDE_EMACS_INT. That's not what Gerd says, AFAIU. But if you are right, then how about making the WIDE_EMACS_INT configuration on the igc branch use USE_LSB_TAG in the HAVE_MPS code branch? I can volunteer to test such a build, if that would help. > > Maybe so, but why is such a long wait a problem? GC works, and > > works well. There are no pressing problems there, and we've lived > > with it for many years virtually without changes. What's the urge to > > make modifications there now, especially when there are chances we > > will be dropping this GC at some point? > > The old !USE_LSB_TAG code, which is broken, interferes with GC development, both MPS and non-MPS. That work is on the igc branch. My objection is against doing that on master and/or with the "old" GC code. In the HAVE_MPS branch of the code, all the arguments I brought up against removing !USE_LSB_TAG are null and void, and I therefore have no objections to doing that in those parts of the code. > > IMO, our main task here is to develop the application levels of Emacs, > > and infrastructure needed to enable such developments. We should only > > invest efforts in stuff like GC and other basics if we see significant > > issues, or could envision significant performance gains. There are no > > such issues or gains here, AFAIU. So diverting our humble resources > > to such jobs is a mistake, IMO. > > Given how many GC developers we have already "lost", simplifying the GC code even a little so people can work with it is worth it, IMHO. And encouraging someone to invest resources into fixing a code path that will never again be used is a much greater mistake. Our perspectives are very different, so let's agree to disagree on this.