Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

[Daniel Colascione]

On 10/24/2016 01:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:24:26 +0200
> >
> > > We are not talking about 1 sec, we are talking about less than half
> > > that time, potentially even 1/4th of a second.
> >
> > That's still a lot.
> >
> > $ time emacs --batch --eval t
> > 0.027user 0.011system 0m0.048selapsed 79.66%CPU
>
> Then I guess you will have to continue using unexec, and when that
> alternative disappears, switch to some other editor.

I have lots of scripts that run using emacs -Q --batch; many are invoked 
frequently in other scripts. Making each take 250ms instead of 27ms to 
run will greatly increase the overall runtime of the high-level 
operations. I don't see a need to regress performance here, since a 
custom malloc will perform at least as well as the last glibc malloc 
that supported unexec (since it could in principle be a literal copy of 
that code), and we found the performance of that malloc acceptable. I 
care _much_ more about runtime performance than I do about allocation 
throughput once started.