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: Building the igc branch on MS-Windows Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:11:46 +0300 Message-ID: <86wmokxiod.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86il063imh.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttjqghyd.fsf@gmail.com> <86zfti101u.fsf@gnu.org> <87pluegd4z.fsf@gmail.com> <86ttjp20je.fsf@gnu.org> <87y191fwnd.fsf@gmail.com> <87cyqcfv6k.fsf@gmail.com> <86o79wzi31.fsf@gnu.org> <86mspgza23.fsf@gnu.org> <86a5lgz7qa.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19269"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 26 17:12:33 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 1s0NFY-0004lh-Q2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:12:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s0NEs-0002LD-U7; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:11:50 -0400 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 1s0NEr-0002Fk-4v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:11:49 -0400 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 1s0NEq-0005xR-R5; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:11:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=bGD19J75c3yNVIQFWZkOUEzhyPGFY+lgtgx2IjVqpqQ=; b=KTi/Jrkq6XITCz/85U/B BWfdtDCobuRY5EfgRp/u9Cs9iHgfk40X3qZK5cuzgKk3zoZ8kLDCxCcHWqLOrZjaebs+S/r8CUsXt IsWOt87ZqPK+NEePJLEGeAN6uwMpnTpF/35sgxP1SlT3y5j/SKeZOkTrtkT9SgN6I3hm+HCQPFao8 FGLRQB47zBKSG3RSefpKZ7TS/sErH5ZxynYFNh0+hdQhJeT9nqsWF5pdf8rES6bG9x9NeCyo1I4Nc AsxqioYTV/SSLUQtDyT9sEpzdiNqbQu5luLXJewmcL1NzHel5MiZPJ1XU1/guA4pm0s3eWRmgppfY ivuvlwrFNLq/xw==; In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:58:10 +0200) 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:318142 Archived-At: > From: Gerd Möllmann > Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:58:10 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Gerd Möllmann > >> I've meanwhile pushed something that handles the use of PVEC_OTHER in > >> modules. Nothing done for the scroll_bar struct in w32. Caution: I > >> remved the assert. > > > > Why did you do that? What possible useful purpose can that serve? If > > the assertion gets in the way of what you are looking at, you can > > always remove it locally, can't you? > > Because PVEC_OTHER is handled fine now, except whatever w32 does in > addition or maybe instead Then maybe the assertion should be w32-only (if only w32 uses PVEC_OTHER; I thought Helmut said he saw the same problem on GNU/Linux?). But removing it completely is not TRT, IMO. We already have quite a lot of code which was disabled under HAVE_MPS, and at least some of that looks like workarounds for problems that got "low priority". I'm not sure this is a good way of making progress here, especially since some of those #ifdef's could potentially cause problems elsewhere. I think we should methodically try to solve every problem we bump into, without any priorities. Priorities are fine when we want to make a POC, to see if this is workable. I think we are way past that point, so leaving unsolved problems is no longer a useful methodology. > (has it modules?) Of course. In a Windows build I have: load-suffixes => (".dll" ".elc" ".el") > >> I'd say that xpostmortem wouldn't make sense during normal debugging, > >> when MPS is not dead in the water. I don't think one can get out of that > >> state again. > > > > I don't follow. How is debugging problems with GC different from > > "normal debugging"? > > Imagine running Emacs under GDB and stopping at some breakpoint to debug > whatever. You want to xbacktrace and then proceed with continue. That > xbacktrace should not put MPS in post-mortem state. > > > In any case, I asked about the downsides of calling igc_postmorten, > > which I think is crucial to understand for making this decision. If > > there are no significant downsides, then doing so is a net win, no? > > It's post-mortem = after death. MPS is then not in a usable state anymore. It should have been obvious that I meant to do that after a crash. I admit I didn't say that explicitly, but I thought it was obvious. Sorry.