Re: Pure space

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

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.