[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term)

From: Andrea Corallo
Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term)
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 16:28:58 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org> writes:
>> The naming went first to `inhibit-native-compilation', this was really
>> just sooo wrong in so many levels :/ So many as many knobs we have to
>> control and disable different parts of the native compiler.  I can't
>> really think of one understanding all this machinery and then picking up
>> this name sorry, I can't.
> Naming is the most difficult thing in computing, after all.
> The doc string to the variable explained what it does just fine, so I
> think your understanding needs a check-up.  (And I don't appreciated
> being talked to in this tone, in case you wondered.)
>>>   1) It allows testing without writing to $HOME.  (This has nothing to
>>>   do with --batch -- testing happens in interactive Emacsen, too.)
>> The user request is for non interactive sessions AFAIU.  And still I've
>> to understand exactly what the user wants to solve.  Most importantly I
>> feel I'm not alone here.
> And I'm telling you that's not all that was requested for...  the third
> time?  I'm not sure I'm getting any further here by repeating myself, so
> I think I'll stop.
>>>   2) It allows people to run an AOT Emacs without triggering further
>>>   compilation.
>> Sorry as changeset I meant 5fec9182db + f97993ee66.  I'm not against
>> e245c4f226.
>>> If you have a suggestion for an alternative change that achieves these
>>> two things, I'm all ears.  (But if your objection is "people shouldn't
>>> want those two things", I'm down to just two ears again.)
>> Again 5fec9182db + f97993ee66 are IMO not useful / wrong, they were not
>> discussed and are just a step backward.  The best change I can suggest
>> is to revert them now.
> You're just repeating that you're against it without proposing an
> alternative, which is not helpful, so I think we've come to the of the
> discussion on this point, too.

You asked for an ameliorative change, I gave you one, that is just to
revert it.  If you don't like it I don't know what to do, I'll not
speculate on your psychology as you did with mine ;)

Best Regards


reply via email to

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