[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:12:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Phillip Lord) writes:
> To summarise my feelings about the thread so far:
>
> - I think most normal users don't need debug symbols,
I agree.
> so I would be
> minded to remove them (or not put them). I don't know why I have
> added "-g3" to the default options. People who know what to do with
> debug symbols are likely to be able to build Emacs for
> themselves.
Not really. Building Emacs is much harder than installing gdb, execute
emacs under gdb and obtain an stack trace.
Debug symbols are useful, and that is the reason why GNU/Linux
distributions offer them as a separate package.
> - We currently install emacs.exe and emacs-26.2.exe. I think we should
> continue doing this because it is how we do it on other
> platforms.
As explained on a previous post, IMO the reasoning behind that practice
makes little sense for Windows.
> The disk space requirement is small (and will be smaller if we
> remove debug symbols). It probably adds little to the download
> bandwith (because of zip) and will add nothing with the .exe
> installer for Emacs-27. And NTFS compression fixes the problem (and
> more) for those who really care about space (and they are probably
> using it already).
Creating symlinks on Windows (pre-10, IIRC) require administrator
privileges. Ditto for enabling NTFS compression.
About what is small and what isn't: that's a personal opinion. I'm mildly
annoyed about the fact that yesterday's MB are today's GB, without a
proportional increase in functionality. Also, I recently started using
an Android tablet with 32 GB storage and I really appreciate how the
Termux guys manage to produce packages that are significantly smaller
than those on desktop GNU/Linux. There are low-end computers in stores
with 32 GB SSDs. And people use old hardware too.
> I am happy to be corrected here if I am missing some unintended
> consequence, or if you disagree with my justifications.
>
>
> Unanswered questions for me:
>
> - If we remove debug symbols, why not do -O3 which may produce some
> performance benefit?
-O3 does not necessarily mean better performance. My bet is that the
difference will be insignificant for Emacs. I've seen plenty of cases
where -O3 was measurably worse than -O2.
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, (continued)
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/17
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Stefan Monnier, 2019/04/17
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/17
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/18
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/18
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/18
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/19
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/22
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Stefan Monnier, 2019/04/22
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/23
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Robert Pluim, 2019/04/23
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/23
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/26
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Óscar Fuentes, 2019/04/26
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Phillip Lord, 2019/04/26
- Re: Bloat in the Emacs Windows package, Björn Lindqvist, 2019/04/27