From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: :Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [patch] combined build Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:42:39 -0800 Message-ID: References: <473C347B.6080907@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195245869 1406 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2007 20:44:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 16 21:44:34 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 1It836-00023g-Bl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:44:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1It82t-0003Ai-6i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1It82o-00037W-IJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1It82j-00030f-8g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1It82i-00030W-Uw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:00 -0500 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1It82e-0003PO-41; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:43:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lAGKgdmb015962; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:42:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:29:20 -0500") Original-Lines: 18 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 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:83371 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > BTW, what kind of benefit are we looking at? > > I agree. I don't think we should undertake to support more modes of > building just for the sake of supporting them. Each additional mode > we do support means more work for us in the future. > > We should add this if it provides substantial benefit, but otherwise > let's not. IMO we should check in the C code changes because they are technically correct and TRTD. The build changes are probably not worth it as the benefit is not great. There's work in progress in gcc to make using interprocedural optimizations easier (just adding a flag on the command line, no other build changes), but it is not ready yet.