GNU bug report logs - #36649
27.0.50; pure space and pdumper

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:27:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Found in version 27.0.50

Done: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: luangruo <at> yahoo.com, 36649 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, pipcet <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#36649: 27.0.50; pure space and pdumper
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 20:11:23 +0300
> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>,  pipcet <at> gmail.com,
>   36649 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  luangruo <at> yahoo.com
> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 12:57:09 -0400
> 
> >> > Basically, I don't want us to drop the pure space in the unexec
> >> > builds, whether it makes sense to the rest of you or not.
> >> Could you explain why?
> > Because I don't want to invest any significant effort in maintaining
> > the unexec build.
> 
> The patch does not touch the unexec code at all.

It "touches" the unexec code in that it removes purespace, and thus
changes the behavior of the unexec build.  I don't want to deal with
consequences of such a change.

> If anything, it should make unexec simpler to maintain, since there's
> one less issue to worry about (the current code might have to worry
> about dumping the normal heap plus the purespace, whereas the new code
> only has to worry about the normal heap), but `grep -i pur src/unex*.c`
> suggests that the purespace has never had any impact on unexec.

I'm not convinced, sorry.

> > No, I'm okay with having the purespace removed from the pdumper
> > builds, if the unexec build can still use it.  AFAIU, that's the
> > "behind several ifdefs" alternative.
> 
> I don't know how to remove the purespace in pdump builds and not in
> unexec builds.  I don't even know what that would mean and/or look
> like.

Po Lu said it should be simple, so maybe he will propose a patch?

> Would the patch below be acceptable?

No, because it removes purespace unconditionally.




This bug report was last modified 199 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.