From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why not zlib-compress-region? Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:03:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <53AC0D17.9020604@yandex.ru> <53AD8EA8.9090805@yandex.ru> <83egy97cj6.fsf@gnu.org> <87k381w61p.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83a98x6up5.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvipvvwk.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <831tu96kb1.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1404075872 25655 80.91.229.3 (29 Jun 2014 21:04:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, "Stephen J. Turnbull" , dmantipov@yandex.ru, sdl.web@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 29 23:04:25 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X1MGt-0004K4-Vk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:04:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59094 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1MGs-00033w-NF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:04:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35275) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1MGi-00033n-Q1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:04:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1MGb-0004Eo-6X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:04:12 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:43277) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1MGT-0004EM-AB; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:03:57 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYGAIDvNVNLd+D9/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSrw0hAmBFxd0giUBAQEBAgFWIwULCzQSFBgNEAETiAQI0hkXjnoHhDgEqRmBaoNMIQ X-IPAS-Result: AuYGAIDvNVNLd+D9/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSrw0hAmBFxd0giUBAQEBAgFWIwULCzQSFBgNEAETiAQI0hkXjnoHhDgEqRmBaoNMIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,753,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="69912416" Original-Received: from 75-119-224-253.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([75.119.224.253]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 29 Jun 2014 17:03:55 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1611666138; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <831tu96kb1.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:00:34 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:172817 Archived-At: > Again, building GCC is not something an end user would easily consider > when all she needs is to be able to use some plugin. Indeed. Luckily, there's no such need: the end user only needs to *install* a compiler. Also, for Windows we could consider binary distributions, like we do for the emacs binary itself. In any case, the fac that the dl-loaded library needs to include a special "gpl-compatible" tag means that in 99% of the cases, it wouldn't be one of the pre-existing libraries already installed on the system. So one way or another we'll end up having to tell people to install a C compiler, or we'll have to distribute pre-compiled binaries. Furthermore, a "plain FFI" like what I suggest (with bindings written in C) is very useful even if we also have a "modern FFI" (with bindings written in some DSL). Rather than argue whether it's useful or not, I wish someone could get the ball rolling (and if she wants to do it with a "modern FFI", then it's fine by me as well, I'm only advocating the "plain FFI" because it's much less work, so it seems like a much more realistic goal, and some of its work would be useful for a subsequent "modern FFI" anyway). Stefan