[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Preview: portable dumper

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:22:03 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 11/28/2016 12:20 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
"EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

EZ> Thanks for your efforts, but I think this is a wrong direction, that will
EZ> eventually get us into the same problem we have with unexec: the need to
EZ> know and depend on intimate details of relocations, memory allocation,
EZ> etc. On top of that, adding Lisp objects will now require writing its
EZ> dumper back-end, so this will be a constant maintenance burden of the kind
EZ> that only a few of us can bear.

Is there a way to get away from such a requirement, Eli? If unexec becomes
untenable in the future, is there an alternative that doesn't place the burden
upon us to encode the right amount of information in the dumped file?

If I understand Daniel's contribution, he's proposing the equivalent of a
program loader for Emacs Lisp byte-code, stored within what amounts to a
custom object file format.

Yes --- one that *we* control, which frees us from changes to underlying systems. Yes, the thing has intimate knowledge of Lisp_Object internals, but whoever changes those internals (and these changes are rare) can change the dumper too.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]