GNU bug report logs - #43255
28.0.50; feature/native-comp void-function subr-native-lambda-list

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Arthur Miller <arthur.miller <at> live.com>
Cc: 43255 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Andrea Corallo <akrl <at> sdf.org>
Subject: bug#43255: 28.0.50; feature/native-comp void-function subr-native-lambda-list
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 08:04:03 +0300

On September 8, 2020 7:26:12 AM GMT+03:00, Arthur Miller <arthur.miller <at> live.com> wrote:
>Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Andrea Corallo <akrl <at> sdf.org>
>>> Cc: arthur.miller <at> live.com, 43255 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 19:24:17 +0000
>>> 
>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>> 
>> Why is it important for the user to know about the native compiler?
>> E.g., how is it different from the C compiler switches used to build
>> Emacs?
>Just as important as x86_64 or linux-gnu :-).
>
>Currently when I press C-h C-a, I get this info (amongst other):
>
>GNU Emacs 28.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.23,
>cairo version 1.17.3)
> of 2020-09-07
>
>I think it would be handy if there was a bit more info on that page.
>I would prefer x64-native GNU/Linux. Why is it less important to know
>about non-gui features? For me who has turned off most of gui stuff,
>GTK
>and Cairo versions are not really what I care about. I have them just
>to
>get better font rendering, but now I can maybe compile without at least
>Gtk? I mean I don't need to know that it is compiled for GNU/Linux; I
>know I am running on a GNU/Linux OS, or that it is a 64-bit OS, yet
>info
>is there.
>
>In my case I would have seen that I didn't compile with native compiler
>support even though I intended (since the configure script failed
>wihout
>me noticing).
>
>I also wouldn't mind more info about compiler switches used to build
>the
>version as well as features/packages built-in. I don't know what is
>essential more and I don't have any philosophical argument, more than
>it
>is sometimes useful.

That's a different issue.  The original question was about the splash screen and specifically about emacs-version.  I see no reason whatsoever to show information about the native compilation there, as it's a minor feature that moreover has no effect at all until some Lisp files are compiled with it.  Besides, the splash screen is already too crowded.

If you are saying that the "About Emacs" display should be redesigned (to make it look differently from the splash screen), I might agree, but then (a) please show a more detailed proposal, and (b) such a display doesn't need the change to be in emacs-version, it can use the other variables which divulge the details of the build and its configuration.

Btw, in line with the recent "let's be like other apps" trend, I suggest to look at what other apps do in their "About" display: I have the impression that this fashion is on its way out.

Bottom line: you've effectively changed the subject, so I suggest to do that explicitly, and start a new thread/issue.

Previous Next

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