Re: building/using address-sanitizer-enabled emacs?

[Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>]

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> A while ago I got address sanitization to work with temacs, but gave up on
> dumped Emacs because it was too much of a pain. Since we already need to get
> Emacs to work without dumping for other reasons, I put the
> address-sanitization project on the back burner, figuring that it wasn't
> worth my time if a dump-free Emacs will be practical soon.
>
> The project to get Emacs to work without dumping has run into problems,
> unfortunately. The currently-favored technical approach (see the
> scratch/raeburn-startup branch) isn't fully working and apparently will slow
> down Emacs startup significantly, which makes it hard to be enthusiastic
> about it. Progress has been slow: no changes have been installed since April
> 10, and the last message from Ken Raeburn, its principal hacker, was April
> 16 and began "This is probably going to make my brain hurt"
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-04/msg00468.html>.
>
> Daniel Colascione proposed an alternative approach in
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-11/msg00625.html> but as
> he noted in
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-12/msg00861.html> it has
> some problems with weak hash tables and we haven't heard from Daniel since
> January, possibly because he was discouraged by Eli's negative reaction to
> this approach.

Darn. Thanks for the back-story.