Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

[Ken Raeburn]

On Apr 7, 2017, at 09:40, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 05:02:30 -0400
>> Cc: Lars Brinkhoff <address@hidden>,
>> address@hidden
>> 
>>> Perhaps we could have a separate, much smaller dumped.elc for batch
>>> invocations, to cater to these use cases.  Ken, does this make sense?
>> 
>> We could do it, sure.  For example, stuff relating to window systems 
>> probably isn’t of much use in batch mode.  One question is, do we change 
>> such things to use autoload in case the user’s init file references their 
>> functions, or do we require that the user know to use “load” or “require”?
> 
> I don't think I understand the question: -batch implies -Q, so the
> user's init file is not relevant.

Sorry, was too late at night I guess.  For batch mode, it’s code loaded via -l 
options that might have to add new explicit dependencies, if we don’t add 
autoloads for everything.  I would expect autoloads would be the direction we’d 
want to go….