Re: Pure space

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: pipcet@protonmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:44:05 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > They might make the unexec build less performant.  But my main worry
> > is that doing so will get us to where we never were before -- an
> > unexec build without pure space, and I'm unwilling to invest any
> > effort in that configuration.  It is enough that I need to routinely
> > build it on my machine to make sure it doesn't break; I don't want any
> > more time wasted on that.
> >
> > Personally, I fail to understand why you want to keep unexec any
> > longer than we did.
> 
> Chiefly because its removal is being considered for systems where unexec
> never posed a problem: Solaris (where unexec is an OS feature and
> virtually the recommended solution for such requirements as saving the
> state of a program to disk), DJGPP, where you implemented specific
> support for unexec in the C library, and suchlike.  I'm not so
> implacably opposed to removing it for Windows, provided that its
> successor is made to function on Windows 98, or the machines where it is
> wanted disappear.

It should be quite clear that nowadays leaving unexec supported
becomes a burden for Emacs development, so it makes less and less
sense to insist on supporting it.