From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <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> <8360ojpndr.fsf@gnu.org> <83shrnm0k1.fsf@gnu.org> <83insi5jy9.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477314321 13024 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 13:05:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:05:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 15:05:13 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 1byevn-0008Cq-U6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:04:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46643 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byevq-0000vO-3v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byevf-0000tL-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byeve-00013H-6D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:39 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:23994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byevY-00011b-0t; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:32 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DeBQALW9BX/++F+M5dGwEBAQMBAQGDLQEBAQEBHoRNhVCxeYYWBAICgWk8EQECAQEBAQEBAV4nhGIBAQMBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIVQi8VQEBAQcCJYp9iX8dBZlZmQ2GC48NgT40IIRsIIYKAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0DeBQALW9BX/++F+M5dGwEBAQMBAQGDLQEBAQEBHoRNhVCxeYYWBAICgWk8EQECAQEBAQEBAV4nhGIBAQMBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIVQi8VQEBAQcCJYp9iX8dBZlZmQ2GC48NgT40IIRsIIYKAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470715200"; d="scan'208";a="276914500" Original-Received: from 206-248-133-239.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.133.239]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Oct 2016 09:04:30 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B58136622D; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:04:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83insi5jy9.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:39:58 +0300") 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: 2.1.21 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:208679 Archived-At: > A small price to pay for the advantages, IMO. I think some users will run away screaming if Emacs takes a whole second to start up. > The most important advantage in my view is that the dumping/loading > process becomes very simple and understandable even by people with > minimal knowledge of C subtleties and Emacs internals, Yes, the benefits are clear, but the cost is pretty steep. I think we could live with a 0.2s startup time, but that's already a pretty high cost: - 0.2s feels sluggish when you expect "immediate". - byte-compilation has historically moved from "do it in a single session", to "start a separate Emacs session for each file" for good reasons. A 0.2s startup time imposes either a much slower byte-compilation, or will compel us to go back to "do it all in a single session". > This would make future maintenance much more robust and reliable, and > also allow more contributors to work on improving, speeding up, and > extending the build process. The alternatives all require us to > depend on a dwindling handful of people, which is a huge disadvantage > in the long run. Maybe there's indeed a lot of speed up still waiting there, and by reducing loading time of .elc files (and/or allowing more laziness there) we could bring down the 0.96s to 0.2s *and* speed up other uses at the same time. Stefan