From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: mark_object crash in 22.1 and latest CVS (as of tonight) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:42 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16af2f430711081955j3d5e6745gc0f7a50e02d9a892@mail.gmail.com> <16af2f430711120340q27926877tf976ef397d12df16@mail.gmail.com> <16af2f430711140939x45663644je0dce25c8796b18@mail.gmail.com> <16af2f430711141700g74175advd8f234478293faa5@mail.gmail.com> <16af2f430711160405p6a734839lb24610ee65257498@mail.gmail.com> <16af2f430711160607m158b9c98xa401166709f628ff@mail.gmail.com> <473DD32F.5070501@gmx.at> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195425962 8782 80.91.229.12 (18 Nov 2007 22:46:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, kalman.reti@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 18 23:46:06 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Itsty-0003Rh-EO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:46:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Itstk-0008OO-VF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Itstg-0008Kx-Vv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Itstc-0008Ak-Cd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Itstc-0008AN-7U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:44 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Itstb-0002Rd-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:43 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Itsta-00039J-II; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:45:42 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:08:44 -0500) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:83570 Archived-At: It's an "optimization" and nothing more. In my book, if an optimization is unsafe, it had better make a good case for itself. As it stands I see no evidence that this optimization is ever useful. As long as nobody can show us numbers that demonstrate a measurable performance impact, I think we're better off without this optimization. Yes, that's the crucial question. It should be easy to get some numbers by running an interactive application that often uses save-match-data and compare the memory usage and amount of GC of the two versions.