From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpgtrmt2.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477682001 5772 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 19:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 21:13:17 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Ca5-0005Mb-KR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:12:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51395 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Ca8-0004Ix-2N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Ca1-0004Is-S0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0Ca0-0004sR-So for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0CZo-0004m9-A4; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:28 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c0CZn-0005AX-Hh; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:12:27 -0400 In-reply-to: <83wpgtrmt2.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:48:41 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208951 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > The Lisp approach has a huge advantage: it is much simpler, so > everyone here will understand it, and it is much easier to maintain > and develop. The special format I propose is simple enough. > So if the performance hit is bearable (meaning will be accepted by the > crowd), it should IMO be preferred for reasons of project management > and its future, Slowness here affects every user and is quite noticeable. Don't we already know that Lisp is too slow for this? It is worth substantial extra effort to speed this up. > care about the future of Emacs in the face of the fact that fewer and > fewer people know, or even want to know, about segments and offsets in > a binary executable file. That is an argument for replacing unexec with something that saves the data to reloed, but it is not an argument for using Lisp as the format. > Using > this simple benchmark proposed by Andreas: > time emacs -batch --eval t I just tried it with my current build (from June). It took .26 seconds, which is fast enough. If replacing unexec with loading Lisp takes .05 seconds more, I won't complain. But I think it will take several seconds, if not minutes. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.