GNU bug report logs - #58580
29.0.50; Ahead-of-time compilation for a few more files?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 58580 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, akrl <at> sdf.org
Subject: bug#58580: 29.0.50; Ahead-of-time compilation for a few more files?
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:47:46 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: akrl <at> sdf.org,  58580 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:13:02 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > In Emacs 28 we added several files to AOT for that reason, but AFAIR
> > they were removed on master.
> 
> Looking at Makefile.in, it seems like they were removed by the following
> change?

Andrea removed them because their addition in the final stages of
Emacs 28.1's pretest was in response to last-minute problems at
startup in some configurations, in particular when Emacs was invoked
with -nw.  Those problems were lately fixed on master in another way,
so Andrea didn't want to keep that semi-kludgey solution which became
unnecessary.

> Which looks like a good change -- they don't need to be compiled
> first -- but it's not like we stopped eln-ing (for instance) subr-x on
> purpose.

See above.

However, now we are saying that having some files precompiled is more
convenient, as it makes the first startup of a newly built/installed
Emacs faster and smoother.  (It only affects the first startup after
building a new version.)  So the motivation is different, but I don't
see why the same solution couldn't satisfy this one as well.  After
all, the solution is solid and tested by 2 releases.

> But I guess we'd have to introduce a new mechanism for this, like
> COMPILE_ELN_EXTRA or something, if we want to AOT them anyway?

Why not use the same mechanism?

Previous Next

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