From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: xenodasein--- via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Development Speed Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:35:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <83r1a4yfpt.fsf@gnu.org> <8335mky4rl.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: xenodasein@tutanota.de 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="15889"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org To: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 23 18:39:19 2021 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 1n0S3j-0003vE-LH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 18:39:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52988 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0S3i-0007QY-Lt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:39:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0S0P-0003VB-N5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:35:53 -0500 Original-Received: from w4.tutanota.de ([81.3.6.165]:55994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n0S0N-0000Pg-VO; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 12:35:53 -0500 Original-Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w4.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3366C1060147; Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:35:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1640280950; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=egy2m29vVPn9671xxbF5YEwPYdoFU/XdCNs0XSvc6Mg=; b=FINDoSB9pG0lpW8cZwh1tAyYYWahCHHz/twjnWX3Xt64HEyulYjHEjDMsk5VCV/k PIM7rn4nER61uuuwiAM0TzZJLPUrNzPHU8i/p/2I9RvIDpMmQRjjDmV97PgIC1XpsbB smohGlNk9viqhzZ/WNGMxnBdXzFsdu6zG44Tgm6AUa01CLISfoH9rpBLiuEpZK0B01C WfEfEB8i7Z+wHbm1Azfjq7CWts47czCvUmoKpmdh6980iiXPIMnoo8oAdO0UzqmRcQY Z0NaQ8Ox4QFsDUs+3G6sZno3dLRDiC0+00ZdZeDgseKn0Nt8nAHAW75LUrh1+RveDzv Win5yFGemg== In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.3.6.165; envelope-from=xenodasein@tutanota.de; helo=w4.tutanota.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:282988 Archived-At: Quoting: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-12/msg02399.ht= ml From: Stefan Monnier > > Then there is VLAs, won't using C99 result in the worse optimization? > Compiler optimizations have very little impact on Emacs-style code > anyway. I would still add that to the list of pros, albeit with a small weight. > According to any of the C standards, Emacs is just one large > undefined behavior. Discussion of C stemmed from making the code-base easier to work on, especially for people who are not seasoned legacy experts. > We don't care what feature belongs to which standard.=C2=A0 So if you wan= t to > suggest changes, either send a concrete patch or discuss > concrete/detailed language features you think we should be using (or > should stop using)... In the same vein, my thought at least, it was more about making the code more standard compliant, predictable, rather than specific features. > ... with a mention of which versions of which compilers > support them. I don't how to reason about this without having the big picture. And to have that I asked for existence of relevant documentation in a recent mail.=C2=A0 Reading the whole build system, as with reading majority of all C code is not it.=C2=A0 It is only something someone who's spent years on maintaining Emacs can know.=C2=A0 And there are some things not written at all, for example RMS in this subject mentioned a significant issue on some old hardware support. I can't see how this is something to ask over small patches, as in a patch that says "Make these few lines of code C17 compliant" wouldn't mean much without a plan.