From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: Win64 testers? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:18:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <867cd61412.fsf@gnu.org> <86y15lzjg6.fsf@gnu.org> <86ttg9zgpb.fsf@gnu.org> <86h6c8zbh8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7694"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 31 15:37:24 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 1sZ9W5-0001nq-IU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 15:37:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sZ9VK-0006Dr-Cp; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:36:34 -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 1sZ2fN-0004so-IN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:18:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sZ2fK-0003US-1t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:18:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1722406699; x=1722665899; bh=mrkdoGN/Q3LVsbwBhpB9DTA510ir3+2J9ZhCfsfirng=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=AJYYLA7IQmef1tjZP8flR5nmk8KZoGNQYHC7Z9wi41L7IccxtON3Gv9lkRb4p+SQp QbK5dD45SOIepl8Q9L740zNBUSrKTNFZuR8Xq9iBHXBF60Y6MvO8DYQpN46tW3bWV5 dovpoySzz97005WTr4vEMat222sVChX/tyQGSIERkWjp8fienZbQ5Ss6H/cxq5bVlI iodex4rrqPVR0gZcqxZKXPLIoW78P1KyWXI7dViczNKytvUGRzg2/oYLY7+YSEyaL6 d/2e9sTsGIIsy2YxhVEFncE6Ddb99jWhFGZ7hFMfUQKX1BWeu+NrlB6gb9CUELu7ol 0fK4qXHkPXNIQ== In-Reply-To: <86h6c8zbh8.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: be67226db9c6198490e03673c9003607271d23a8 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:36:32 -0400 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:322227 Archived-At: On Monday, July 29th, 2024 at 11:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:22:40 +0000 > > > From: Pip Cet pipcet@protonmail.com > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > > > > On Sunday, July 28th, 2024 at 15:20, Eli Zaretskii eliz@gnu.org wrote: > > > > > > By my reading of the source code I found, it's doing the same as Wi= ne, not as MSVCRT. > > > > > > If someone steps through that code in the UCRT build and reports that > > > fdopen returns a different FILE pointer, I will believe you. > > > > I've verified this by running a GitHub action (I won't provide a link b= ecause it's probably impossible to use without running proprietary GitHub J= avaScript), though I couldn't work out how to make clang link against msvcr= t rather than its own libraries. > > Thanks, but this is just a first small step in the right direction. > We need this verified with Emacs, not a small separate test program, > and we need then some serious testing of whatever solution we decide > to implement. I think the bar is slightly lower than that: the code in Emacs is clearly b= uggy, because it relies on strange and peculiar implementation details that= go far beyond anything guaranteed by the API (and that may break at any po= int on new systems). Replacing it is necessary. > All of that requires a volunteer who will take upon > him/herself to implement and test the possible solutions on the actual > platform, and then maintaining that and the rest of UCRT-specific > stuff for some reasonably observable future. This isn't UCRT-specific, and, as far as I'm concerned, "the actual platfor= m" is Wine, not Microsoft Windows. If a UCRT build works on wine, it's quit= e likely to work on Microsoft Windows machines, too. > IOW, this needs a > dedicated support person. That's desirable, yes, but hardly necessary. There's a difference between f= ixing obvious bugs that will prevent builds from ever working and deciding = a platform is "officially" supported. FWIW, I've tested my UCRT build on Microsoft's proprietary Windows, briefly= , and it starts up and appears to work. However, I cannot do so on a regula= r basis. > > > And, as I > > > said, support for UCRT will only become official if someone volunteer= s > > > to come on board and handle that build. > > > > That's what I meant by "if and when the time comes". > > > > > > And any other implementation of the Windows API that doesn't provid= e bug-for-bug compatibility with MSVCRT. > > > > > > For now, only the MSVCRT support is official. > > > > Of course, and I think it's more likely it will cease being official th= an other builds becoming official. > > > > > > Wine is the only significant free implementation of the Windows API= , so I disagree with the "just". If I understand RMS correctly, whether the= re is a free implementation of an OS is an important factor in deciding to = redirect resources to supporting it in GNU software. > > > > > > Such decisions can only be relevant if there are resources to allocat= e > > > and redirect. > > > > I think the community of Emacs developers decides by consensus (or bick= ering) what to work on. My understanding was that we're considering whether= to stop working on at least some variants of the Windows port. > > The community of Emacs developers cannot allocate resources that don't > exist. And even when they do exist, the ability of the community to > redirect those resources is limited by the opinions and limitations of > the people whose resources need to be redirected. One thing we can certainly stop doing is to discourage people from even loo= king at stuff. Closing actual bugs as "wontfix" without a sensible explanat= ion, for example, seems counterproductive to me. > > > Since we don't have them, this is entirely academic. > > > > Well, I disagree. Official guidance by the GNU Emacs project does have = some influence on what volunteers will work on. I consider that a resource. > > I'm around for enough time to know that it is almost never a resource > we can control. And the effectiveness of such guidance is severely > limited even in easier cases, see the recent arguments about naming > packages and similar stuff. > > > > For now, the only person who actively works on the Windows port is > > > myself, and I'm unable to support UCRT, for more than one reason. > > > > Are you working on MINGW64 systems at all, or is it mingw exclusively? > > > I'm using MinGW and don't intend to install MinGW64 any time soon. Maybe it's time to make that port unofficial, or at least to stop directing= people to it rather than the MinGW64 port. Pip