From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Making --with-wide-int the default Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87io56nu0a.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <5610ED13.1010406@dancol.org> <56117F37.9060808@dancol.org> <83oag087gs.fsf@gnu.org> <83oafz70im.fsf@gnu.org> <5620AF43.4050401@cs.ucla.edu> <83k2qn6xfm.fsf@gnu.org> <5620B4FA.1000804@cs.ucla.edu> <83wptojs1r.fsf@gnu.org> <56444C66.8050506@gmx.at> <83r3jugx8g.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447406022 21673 80.91.229.3 (13 Nov 2015 09:13:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:13:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, jwiegley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 13 10:13:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPk-00066h-TS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:13:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51768 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPk-00082U-Kd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:13:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44215) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPh-00082P-Tj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:12:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPc-0002L5-Gl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:12:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40613) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPV-0002JW-0z; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:12:45 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54394 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAPF-0007se-F7; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:12:29 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D0C0CDFA90; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:11:49 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83r3jugx8g.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:43:59 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194336 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Richard Stallman >> CC: eliz@gnu.org, jwiegley@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:31:51 -0500 >> >> > > Based on this, I'd like to turn --with-wide-int on by default. Any >> > > last-minute objections? >> >> > With a very visible description of how to turn it off, please. Mine is >> > apparently still one of these "old slow 32-bit machines" :-( >> >> People who build Emacs should not _have_ to know anything about >> --with-wide-int. We should make configure automatically do the right >> thing on machines that don't support wide ints. > > There are no machines we know of that cannot support wide ints. The > only problem is that using wide ints produces a somewhat slower Emacs > (Paul reported a 30% slowdown), so on slow machines this could be > annoying. Also the cell size doubles, so the Lisp data structures take more memory. I think it is quite reasonable _not_ to use wide ints by default on architectures with a 32-bit address space. Everything takes up more memory, the maximum of virtual address space is something like 3GB anyway so it's not like you could hope to increase the amount of stuff you could be editing all that much: it is more likely that with several buffers loaded at once, you'll _decrease_ the overall amount of stuff you can keep loaded into buffers at the same time. -- David Kastrup